I'm currently working on an art project on the X-Men. I want to include as many members as I can but I want to keep it limited to just the iconic/important/popular members (In their most popular iteration). I was planning on around 20-30 members. I already made a list, but I want input, what characters should I add/delete/any incorrect info, let me know!
PS Im not a X-Men genius and I relied on wikis for info, so sorry for mistakes.
Original Team Professor X/Charles Francis Xavier Cyclops/Scott Summers Iceman/Robert “Bobby” Louis Drake Beast/Henry “Hank” Phillip McCoy Angel/Warren Kenneth Worthington III Marvel Girl/Jean Elaine Grey 60s-70s Recruits Morph/Kevin Sydney Polaris/Lorna Sally Dane Havok/Alexander “Alex” Summers NightcrawleKurt Wagner Wolverine/James “Logan” Howlett Storm/Ororo Munroe Colossus/Piotr "Peter" Nikolaievitch Rasputin QuicksilvePietro Django Maximoff 80s Recruits Shadowcat/Katherine "Kitty" Anne Pryde Lockheed Rogue/Anna Marie Magneto/Max Eisenhardt/Erik Magnus Lehnsherr Psylocke/Elizabeth “Betsy” Braddock 90s Recruits Gambit/Remy Etienne LaBeau Jubilee/Jubilation Lee Bishop/Lucas Bishop 00s Recruits White Queen/Emma Grace Frost Mystique/Raven Darkhölme Sunspot/Roberto "Bobby" da Costa Magik/Illyana Nikolievna Rasputina Sub-MarineNamor Domino/Neena Thurman 10s Recruits X-23/Laura Kinney CypheDouglas “Doug” Aaron Ramsey Warlock Legion/David Charles Haller 20s Recruits Prodigy/David Alleyne

This story, like Gaul, comes in three parts: Background, Complication, and Theory. I am working on a theory that my 3x great grandpa married two women with the same name, including my 3x great grandma.
BACKGROUND
Five years ago, I found this photo after grandma went to the nursing home, and submitted this post about it. Within days, I had death records and census and marriage records to tie all these folks together. The photo depicts my great great grandma Margaret Frances "Fannie" Shelley (bottom right) and her three siblings: Ida V., Charles (top right), and Edgar. This photo continues to anchor an obsession that I have with this family.
Thanks to the info I got on this sub, I was eventually able to identify all the people in this picture that I didn't find until after my Grandma passed. If there's interest, I'll make another post retracing how I tracked them all down. But this post is about my 3x great grandparents.
Here's the story. My 2x great grandma is Fannie Shelley (1865–1938), daughter of Peter Shelley and Eliza Moore. I know this from her death certificate (1938) and her marriage certificate (1883).
Here's what I know about Peter and Eliza.
Peter was born to David Shelley and Anna Wright around 1825 in Kentucky. He joined the "Montgomery Boys" in 8 Oct 1847 and served in the Mexican War until 28 Jul 1848. He appears on the 1850 census living with the Stonebreakers a few houses down from his brother George (also near my 5x great grandma Catherine Krout) in Union Township, Montgomery County. With him is living Eliza J. Shelley, born c. 1825, in Ohio.
My Peter and Eliza had their children: Fannie (1865), Ida (1867), Charlie (1870), and Edgar (1877). I have not been able to locate them in the 1860 or 1870 censuses. Peter died in 1877, recorded in Fannie's 1938 obituary as dying when she was 12. Edgar was born May 1 according to his grave, and Fannie turned 12 on April 20, 1877 — so her dad might have died any time in that range. I believe that he died in Newtown, Fountain Co.
Eliza A. Shelley appears on the 1880 census as living alone with 3 (not 4) children. Fanni M, aged 4 (this is incorrect; she's 14), Ida V., aged 13, and Alfred E., aged 3 in Stockwell, IN (Tippecanoe Co.). Eliza is 45 (born 1835) and her birthplace is given as Indiana.
An aside: I found 10-year-old Charles living with James F. Thompson and his wife Sarah Moore In Madison Township, Montgomery County. This Sarah Moore may be a relation to Eliza somehow. Her sister Catherine married a first cousin to James, David Thompson. James in 1880 was uncle to 10-year-old Frank Thompson, destined to be Fannie's second husband (after her first died) and my 2x great grandpa.
Eliza gathered Peter's pension as soon as it became available in 1887, according to newspaper and pension records in Ladoga. I believe that she died on July 20, 1892 due to a memorial card I found in a family photo album.
THEN I FOUND MORE RECORDS
A stash of postcards from around 1910 came into my possession. Among them, several from "Maglennie" Shelley to "Aunt Fannie," also credited to Bertha Sharp. A quick search turned up Maglena and Bertha Shelley (m. William Sharp 1906), sisters, daughters of William H. Shelley and Mary Smith. William H. Shelley was the son of... Peter and Eliza Shelley!
Now to the second Peter and Eliza. This Peter was born 1827 in Kentucky. He married Eliza Jane Crane on May 27, 1849 in Montgomery County. They had three children: William (1851), John (1855), and Elizabeth (1859). They appear together on the 1860 census in Butler Township of Miami, Indiana. Eliza J. Shelley was born 1828. Living with them is also a Margaret Smith. This Eliza J. was born in Ohio.
Recap: there is a marriage record (1849) for Peter(2) and Eliza J., no marriage record for Peter(1) and Eliza A. 1850 census matched the birth years and placed their births in KY & OH, same as Peter(2) and Eliza J. Do we trust the census takers to get a middle initial, birth years and places right?
The plot thickens! While there was no marriage record for Peter(1) and Eliza A., there is a marriage record for a Peter "Shelly" and Eliza Ann Watson in Montgomery County, March 31, 1863 (attached). AND there's a marriage record for an Eliza A. Moore and a Joseph Watson from April 13, 1848 in Montgomery County (attached).
HERE'S MY THEORY
There is only one Peter Shelley, but two Elizas. Peter married first Eliza Jane Crane after the Mexican War and had three children. Then, around 1861, his first wife died and he remarried Eliza A. Moore Watson, her first husband having died. They had four more children until his death in 1877.
For this theory to hold water, I need to find this family on the 1870 census. There ought to be Peter and Eliza A., and at least four kids: John (14), Elizabeth (11), Fannie (5), and Ida (3). So far, none of these folks have appeared on the 1870 census.
I would also love to see a death or divorce for this Joseph Watson, and Joseph & Eliza Watson on the 1850 and 1860 censuses.
Thanks for reading this far. What do you think of my theory? Is there anything I've overlooked?

Hello!
For the last couple of years I have been trying to find my grandmother’s birth certificate. I have her siblings’ certificates, my great grandpa’s certificate, his wedding certificate, and his death certificate. I have my own grandma’s marriage and death, however I can’t find my grandma’s birth certificate.
My grandma’s name was Kathleen Mary treacy and she died in 1965 (I was born in 1989). I know she was Irish, born in either Dublin or enniscothy (sp?) however she was born in 1918 which hits right between that census window. Also supposedly there was a fire in 1921 which might have burned the records.
I have contacted the Irish government (gro research center) who informed me they couldn’t find her records, I have been on that Irish genealogy website and couldn’t find anything, and I have contacted one genealogy website but they didn’t respond back.
I would present the baptismal records however when my great grandpa died in 1925 my great grandma sent the kids to the orphanage in Cheshire. (I have contacted them but because of a controversy they seem hesitant to get anything. Also tbh they might not have much). I have talked to my dad’s cousins about it but since all my great uncles and aunts are dead, it’s hard to get the right info of where they might have lived for a baptismal record.
I really want to apply for the foreign birth registrar but obviously theres been mysterious resistance. I was wondering what I should do or what professional genealogist you suggest I might approach.
Also here is the information of my grandma in case this works.
Kathleen Mary Treacy (Switched it to Tracey when she moved to the UK) Born: Nov 1918 or Oct 1918 Carlow ennicothy (sp?) or Dublin (Both have been listed in ancestry organizations) Father: Michael Joseph Treacy Mother: Elizabeth Annie or anne Byrne (however has also been O'Byrne)
After the death of my great grandfather I believe my grandma was sent to Newton Hall, Frodsham, near Warrington, Cheshire. I have contacted their company to verify but there is a seven month waitlist because they stopped that service in 2021.
Siblings: Vincent Matthew Treacy (May 1920 Dublin- Nov 1993 Manchester) Christopher Matthew Treacy (May 1922 Dublin-Oct 1999 London) Stella Marie Treacy (Nov 1925 Dublin-2009 Essex)

Introduction
It's obvious that feminists treat men like a monolith, and there's a group of men they generalize men off of, and these are the only genuine misogynists out there. First, this thread of mine cites a lot of evidence about how most sexism towards women is actually benevolent sexism, a form of sexism that treats women like they're special and positively for being women, often in an infantilizing and coddling way. This is the type of sexism perpetuated by feminists, and feminists think hostile sexism (i.e.: misogyny) is the norm. It isn't. In fact, misogyny was never historically the norm, and I elaborate on that in the thread about how most sexism towards women is benevolent sexism.
Here's an important finding: hostile sexism towards women, hostile sexism towards men, benevolent sexism towards women, and benevolent sexism towards men, all are correlated. In fact, benevolent and hostile sexism tend to be correlated. The problem is, in my thread of how most sexism towards women is benevolent, I explain how the hostile sexism scale is heavily flawed and often involves critiques on feminism or statements that are actually true. There is a hostility toward women scale which, despite some flaws, is far more accurate. As a result, I can't say that most benevolently sexist people are also hostilely sexist. They're probably not. Hostile sexism is unusual. If someone scores high on the hostile sexism scale, but low on benevolent sexism, then I could assume they're actually hostilely sexist.
Now this brings the type of men feminists generalize men off of: misogynistic men. They're not necessarily any guy who believes in a traditional gender role nor is it a guy who criticizes something about a woman and nothing more.
Misogynistic men tend to be highly promiscuous men, contrary to the popular virgin misogynist stereotype.
There's this common misconception, especially online, that misogynistic men are often virgins and virgin men are more misogynistic. Nowadays, there's a lot of researchers who believe in this myth, and have conducted studies showing that unwanted virginity is associated with higher levels of misogyny or endorsement of violence against women. Nonetheless, these studies have flawed methodology. I made a thread about 2 years ago debunking some study saying this.
This study was conducted to find out why there are men who are hostilely sexist but not benevolently sexist. Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are correlated, but it could be because self-admitted benevolently sexist people (feminists are benevolently sexist but don't act honest) are more likely to critique feminism more. People who score low-to-moderate on benevolent sexism but score high on hostile sexism probably are the genuinely hostilely sexist types. The study found that men who perceived themselves as low in mate value were not more benevolently sexist as they became more hostilely sexist, especially if they were single. Nonetheless, self-perception is subjective. For example, they found that objective levels of sexual/dating experience and self-perceived mate value were only moderately correlated, and self-perceived socioeconomic status and actual socioeconomic status were just moderately correlated. Men who perceived themselves as lower in socioeconomic status did not score lower on benevolent sexism as their hostile sexism increased. Nonetheless, maybe men who perceived themselves as low in mate value without being objectively low in mate value were the hostilely sexist ones, rather than ones who were feeling that way because it matches reality. For example, they said: "These effects emerged when controlling for SES and relationship history, both of which correlated as expected with social status and mate value, respectively." Additionally, their measure of objective dating history was asking how many partners, dates, etc. they had in their lifetime or in the past 3 months. A man who has been in a relationship for a long time without cheating would answer just 1, for example. Even the ones who objectively scored lower on dating history could have those circumstances instead or just average levels of dating success or ability to attract women, rather than people who actually deal with unwanted dating/sexual inexperience. I bet a low percent of these men were truly virgins, let alone ones dealing with unwanted virginity. The ones who were virgins probably were disproportionately the youngest participants (ages 18 to 20). The researchers concluded that men who are truly misogynistic are just ones who perceive themselves as unattractive to women, but not men who perceive themselves as low in socioeconomic status. Nonetheless, it doesn't show the full story.
This study examined how prevalent sexism was in people. Measuring benevolent sexism and hostile sexism, they found:

Our results show, for the first time, that by far, the most common pattern was for people to hold similar levels of BS and HS. Strongly ambivalent sexists, however, constituted only 8%–9% of the population. Most were classified as mild or moderate ambivalent sexists (28% and 44%, respectively). Univalent sexism was exceedingly rare, with between 2% and 5% of people solely endorsing HS but not BS, or BS but not HS.

I doubt people are often hostilely sexist at all, but it could be benevolently sexist people often critique feminism or believe there's less sexism towards women in society than feminists claim or believe women don't appreciate enough of what men do for them, and believe society overemphasizes men being antagonistic towards women rather than benevolent towards women (men are far more likely to be the latter than the former). People who score low on benevolent sexism but high on hostile sexism, as a result, might be the real misogynists. It's not that people who are solely benevolently sexist are rare, it's that most tend to critique feminism, but people who are actually hostilely sexist are, indeed, a minuscule percent of people (3.3% of the men and 1.0% of the women).
This study shows that unwanted celibacy is associated with misogynistic attitudes and pro-rape attitudes and there's other studies showing this as shown in this video by Alexander from Date Psychology where he shows who is more misogynistic. He also shows experimental studies where a fictional woman rejects men and then it shows it made those men misogynistic, but that wasn't showing which men do get rejected a lot and it could be it doesn't make men more misogynistic depending on how much he values being the ultimate stud (which I elaborate more later on this post). The problem is that these studies only look at self-perceived dating success or how experienced a person self-perceives themself. You can't say ask them how experienced they are or how good at dating they are. Look at this:
Aside from those last 4 statements, which I bet few of the men answered affirmatively
When measuring objectively how experienced men are, it was very different. Alexander from Date Psychology conducted his research but the scale was still subjective self-perception:
https://preview.redd.it/nub745h43rwc1.png?width=621&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a51aaf6d1730679a88941410f2bb9dc197fabe2
Not just that, but even when he measured objective levels of experience, he found that obviously self-identified incels scored high on the Extreme Misogyny Scale, but the involuntarily sexless men who did not identify as incel (which most don't) did score only just somewhat higher than other men (M = involuntary sexless men who don't identify as incel 37.59, M = non-incels/sexless men 32.17, p = 0.001, d = .47). However, the scale does include statements that any involuntary virgin man could relate to or accurate statements, like "I have uneasy feelings of nervousness and fear around girls", which could mean shyness, or "to see another male be successful with females is torture", which just means jealousy, or "if a man is all alone, people get the impression that girls are repulsed by him, and therefore he is a worthless loser", which is true and can be a stigma society does actually perpetuate against male virgins:
Again, this is mostly subjective self-perception.
As a result, those kinds of statements could be why involuntarily sexless men who don't identify as incel only scored somewhat higher. Moreover, there could be a sampling bias. The dude didn't show, and probably won't be honest about, how he got his participants, and there's a high overrepresentation of incels and involuntary sexless men in his sample. Maybe involuntary sexless men who don't identify as incels but are still misogynistic disproportionately came in contact with or chose to respond more to the survey compared to involuntary sexless men who neither identify as incel nor are misogynous. Alexander doesn't elaborate on how he got his sample.
Misogynistic men often perceive themselves as unattractive to women, despite being promiscuous. They weren't virgins who couldn't get dates.
When studies measured objective sexual/romantic experience, they find a different result. Yes, misogynistic men often perceive themselves as unattractive to women, but they aren't. In fact, statistics show they tend to have many more sex partners, dating partners, one-night stands, etc. They are promiscuous men. They also often are involved more in fraternities and sports, not nerd activities (They are more involved in gaming groups, but that's not necessarily nerdy, given that most men have played videogames before. They just often are involved in male-oriented groups. That's what it is.). They tend to be hypermasculine and believe they need to be as masculine as they can to be real men. Rapists also consistently were found to have more sex partners, more dating partners, and earlier ages of first intercourse/first lifetime dates. Misogynistic men also were more likely to commit sexual assault and rapists often were misogynistic. Nonetheless, male intimate partner violence offenders against girlfriends usually weren't misogynistic. They were just generally violent people with criminal records. So why are rapists misogynistic but not men who commit intimate partner violence? In fact, misogynistic men were not necessarily more likely to commit intimate partner violence unless they thought their girlfriend lacked commitment.
Rapists have often complained in interviews of too many women rejecting them. Nonetheless, they were found to be highly promiscuous. They often pursued women very frequently, hung out in bars, parties and clubs a lot and talked about sex with friends more. They masturbated more, went to strip clubs more, had sex with prostitutes more, had more orgasms, and watched more porn. Nonetheless, this is because rapists (and misogynistic men in general) had unusually high aspirations about how successful with dating they should be. They can have a high number of partners and regular sex, and think they are no more successful than a middle-aged virgin because they don't have sex everyday, have hundreds of partners and a 0% rejection rate. As a result, these kind of guys self-perceive themselves as unattractive to women or not getting any dates or sex even though they do. It's like someone with muscle dysmorphia thinking they have no muscle when they do because of their body image disorder. This is why studies showing that unwanted celibacy is associated with misogyny or pro-rape attitudes probably usually feature experienced men who think they struggle when they don't because they want to be the most promiscuous, attractive chick magnet on Earth. Those men are more common than involuntary adult virgins, who probably comprised a minuscule percent of the sample and would be a minuscule sample size.
Research shows misogynistic men tend to be generally aggressive, violent or hostile people, which predicted violent attitudes toward women, hostile masculinity, impersonal sex, and hostility toward women, and hostility toward women and hostile masculinity predicted both sexual and nonsexual aggression. Sexual dominance also predicted sexual aggression, but not nonsexual aggression. Nonetheless, when controlling for general hostility, misogynistic men were still more aggressive in sexual and nonsexual ways towards women, especially during provocation. Non-misogynistic men were only somewhat more aggressive towards women during high provocation, but more so towards men when provoked. Misogynistic men were more aggressive towards men when provoked (but not as much as non-misogynistic men), but were more aggressive towards women than they were towards men when provoked. Rapists also were generally aggressive people. Misogynistic men and rapists often are violent towards men, too, but it could be because they believe they need to be violent in order to be manly. A study found that although beliefs in being tough are associated with hostility toward women, masculine gender role stress (anxieties about one's masculinity) did not mediate this association, but mediated the association between having good status as a man in society or anti-femininity norms and the two's association with hostility toward women. They concluded it's unknown what mediates hostility toward women and toughness, but it could be possible that men who belief in toughness are generally hostile, including toward men.
Misogynistic men, who are often hypermasculine, often are anxious about how masculine they are and their ability to have prestige or status as a man, and they try to be as masculine as possible for this reason. This could be related to the idea that this is necessary in order to attract women, given that women are attracted to traditionally masculine men. They also believe they need to be the ultimate stud who has as many sex partners as possible or a zero percent rejection rate, and due to their high aspirations about their sex life, they tend to believe they are no more successful than a middle-aged virgin even if they're experienced as it gets. A study had found that misogynistic men had high dark triad traits (machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism), a higher need for chaos, a higher social dominance orientation, and a higher score on radicalism and activism. They found that men who were sexless by choice and men who were sexless because they lacked opportunity both were NOT more misogynistic. Involuntarily sexless men scored lower on misogyny (and this is noteworthy, given that the Extreme Misogyny Scale has statements about jealousy towards men who have girlfriends, love-shyness or the stigma against male virgins, not just actually misogynistic statements), and they also scored lower on dark triad traits, social dominance orientation, radicalism, activism and a need for chaos. Men who had more interest in more sex were less misogynistic, but men who are sexless by choice still were not very misogynistic. Men who had high interest in lots of sex and a lot of sex partners were the least misogynistic compared to everyone else, BUT men who had low-to-moderate levels of interest in sex but lots of sex partners were highly misogynistic. The issue is that men who know how much they attract women and who want to sleep around and successfully do tend to lack misogyny, so if a guy knows how successful he is and genuinely likes to have sex with women, he probably really likes women. Men who feel they need to sleep around even though they don't want to and believe they need to be the ultimate stud are often misogynists, but men who want to have sex but objectively struggle with dating aren't misogynistic. They don't care about being the ultimate promiscuous chick magnet (they just want a girlfriend), and they score low on dark triad traits, social dominance orientation, etc., so of course their lack of success won't make them misogynous.
Does this mean misogynistic men are chick magnets? Not quite. They might be, especially given that hypermasculine men tend to attract women and they are very macho (although it's because they try too hard to be macho). Nonetheless, they probably aren't necessarily chick magnets, if ever. This doesn't mean they cannot attract women though. You need at least some ability to attract women to sleep around, and involuntary sexless men already have low standards due to their lack of options (contrary to the stereotype that they only want supermodels) yet still struggle because they can't attract women and thus lack opportunity. Misogynistic men probably have at least average ability to attract women, and they tend to be full of dark triad traits. Dark triad men tend to mimic charming behaviors to attract people, and often have very low standards just to increase their number of partners and have as much sex as possible. They tend to be focused on short-term mating, and misogynistic men, dark triad men, and rapists tend to prefer casual sex over relationships and although dark triad men, rapists and misogynous men have relationships, they tend to be bad in their relationships, lack emotional intimacy and faithfulness, and their relationships last quicker. Dark triad men and misogynistic men both have low standards to sleep around with tons of women and they pursue women super often and this leads to them being promiscuous rather than because they're chick magnets. Men who actually struggle to attract women would not have opportunity to sleep around or even have sex or dates much at all (if at all). Dark triad men and misogynous men or rapists tend to be at least average in their ability to attract women, but they have low standards and pursue women very often to sleep around. It's not necessarily being a chick magnet with high ability to attract women that causes the promiscuity in them, but they don't actually struggle with dating or attracting women.
Dark triad men tend to be more prone to endorsing rape and committing rape, and they tend to be about sleeping around all the time. Hostile sexism accounted for, not all, but a substantial amount of dark triad traits in both men and women, and that it might be why men score higher in dark triad traits, given that including hostile sexism as a variable reduced gender differences in dark triad traits. Another study found that dark triad predicted more benevolent and hostile sexism in men and women, and that singularly, narcissism predicted benevolent sexism in men and psychopathy predicted hostile sexism in women. This study found that when it comes to dark triad traits, entitlement predicted sexual dominance and negativity toward women, anger predicted the most hostility toward women, and erratic lifestyle predicted impersonal sexual attitudes/behavior. In other words, dark triad men and misogynous men are two sides of the same coin. The important fact to remember is virgin men in other studies (although it did not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary virgin men but a previously mentioned study did) did not score higher on hostility toward women or acceptance of violence, and actually scored lower on pro-rape attitudes or believing people owed them sex. Admittedly, in one sample of 65 men with a mean age of 19.9 years (SD = 1.3), of the 15 virgin men, the virgin men reported more attraction to sexual aggression (M = 12.40) than the experienced men (M = 7.98). Nonetheless, the sample size of virgin men was small and aforementioned studies showed results indicating the opposite finding. Furthermore, people who are virgins or who have a low number of sexual partners by young adulthood engage in less antisocial behaviors as adolescents (Contrary to popular belief, antisocial doesn't mean socially withdrawn or introverted. That's being asocial. Antisocial means lacking empathy and violating the rights of others, being characteristic of antisocial personality disorder.) Moreover, men who have served time in prison were significantly less likely to be virgins (and obviously prison rape victims won't count themselves as sexually experienced, so clearly this means even before prison, they were less likely than the general population to be a virgin). Male criminals often were found to lose their virginity early and have a high number of sexual partners. Virgin men are not more likely to be violent, and if anything, they are less violent. Here's another fact: 100% of intimate partner violence and homicide offenders have romantic/sexual experiences. Admittedly, many of these studies don't distinguish between involuntary and voluntary virgins, but it's common for virgin men to be involuntary virgins compared to virgin women, so if they were misogynistic or prone to rape, it'd still show perhaps an association, and a previously mentioned study showed involuntary virgin men scored lower on misogyny, dark triad traits, etc.
There's evidence to show that dark triad traits are linked to pro-rape attitudes and sexual assault and that dark triad traits being more common in men could explain why men are more likely to be hostilely sexist towards women than women are and why men are more sexually aggressive. Furthermore, dark triad traits appear to be an evolutionary mating tactic in men to have more sex and is a reproductive mating strategy (remember, nature and evolution are amoral), which explains why men are more sexually aggressive than women. Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, use sexual coercion and it was linked in them to more reproductive success. Rape has been found in many species (but it's called forced copulation). In fact, a study found that while some sexually assaulted men and women (about a quarter of them) had sex with their offender on at least one subsequent occasion, there was a noteworthy difference about female victims versus male ones:

Female victims of a completed sexual assault were significantly more likely to continue being sexually active with their assailants than were female victims who managed to block the assault, while no such difference was found for male victims. This would imply that some men are using assaultive tactics to secure sex partners beyond a single sexual episode, thereby enhancing their potential reproductive success in evolutionary terms. Also, men who committed sexual assault reported having had more lifetime sex partners than did sexually experienced men with no sexual assault history. Overall, the idea that sexual assault is part of an evolved reproductive strategy is consistent with findings from this study.

There's also evidence that misogynistic men are more likely to have impregnated someone before.
Self-identified incels and "manosphere" people are the vocal minority of misogynists, not the majority.
Compared to other men, red pilled men were found to have the same numbers of sex partners and self-reported dating app success (although the dating app success question is self-perception). Self-identified incels and involuntary adult virgins were found to be very similar in their circumstances and characteristics, with their views on women or humanity being an exception. Adult virgins disproportionately were races like Asian or Indian, living with parents, had poor social lives in adulthood or were bullied or shunned growing up and did not socially integrate. They often missed out many social experiences in their teens/20s. Self-identified incels had more in common with other adult involuntary virgins than they did with the usual, silent majority of misogynistic men who aren't part of the manosphere. Obviously, it's not zero percent of involuntarily sexless men who are misogynistic. It's hard for it to be precisely zero percent among any group of people. Nonetheless, they are not disproportionately misogynistic. Maybe the low minority who are tend to be the ones who disproportionately join incel forums, but many incels who join these forums originally were not misogynistic but had their views affected by these forums. Typically, self-identified incels join these forums for belongingness due to society's dismissive, stigmatizing attitude toward socially isolated men who lack social or dating/sexual lives. For the low minority of involuntary virgin men who are misogynistic, it's unknown why they are, but those kinds of men are not more misogynistic, and in fact, are less misogynistic compared to the average man.
Conclusions
Only a low percentage of men were found to be misogynistic. Most sexism toward women is benevolent sexism. Although benevolently sexist people could have critical views of feminism or disagree with the idea of women facing discrimination in society, they aren't misogynistic (i.e.: negativity or hatred toward women). Men who are truly misogynistic are unusual and they have a lot of dark triad traits and these traits are evolutionary mating strategies with mostly short-term mating goals. Dark triad men and misogynistic men are two sides of the same coin, and they tend to believe they need to be the ultimate stud with a zero percent rejection rate and many sex partners, and believe they must be extremely macho and have a lot of status or success as men, presumably because they believe it affects their ability to attract women. Although they have only at least average ability to attract women, they tend to have low standards and pursue women often to have many sex partners, and perceive themselves as unattractive to women and involuntarily celibate even though they're clear not due to their unusually high aspirations about how much of a stud they should be. These men are much more likely to commit rape, and they are only more likely to commit intimate partner violence if they worry about their partner lacking commitment. Nonetheless, despite entering relationships, they tend to prefer casual sex and promiscuity, and they're more likely to cheat, get cheated on, and have less good relationships with their girlfriends (not all of them have bad relationships, but disproportionately, they do have worse relationships).
These men have dark triad traits as an evolutionary mating strategy to increase reproductive success, and mimicking charming behaviors to get consensual sex, committing rapes (Nonetheless, not all of them rape.), pursuing women often and lowering standards are their strategies. Sexual gratification and having more sexual experience is the main motive among rapists, with the "Rape is about power" idea being a feminist myth. Rape is an evolutionary tactic (evolution is amoral), but socialization, such as society putting pressure on men to be chick magnets who have regular sex amplifies this issue among these men, and increases the number of men who are hypersensitive to rejection, who believe women are obliged to date them, and who commit rape. Wanting to sleep around with tons of women and be the ultimate stud, and feeling like one is unattractive to women because they don't have a zero percent rejection rate and hundreds of new partners everyday is the main reason why men become misogynistic, not because of socialization (society teaches benevolent sexism and chivalry, not hate or violence against women). Society's pressure on men to be sexually active studs causes men to feel they should be attractive to women and able to have sex regularly, which could then cause misogyny, but that's not the result society intends. Men also become misogynistic when they feel like they should be as manly as possible, with presumably the reason being that it's necessary to attract women. Intimate partner violence offenders, on the other hand, don't tend to be misogynists. They are just generally violent people, and they and other male criminals were two sides of the same coin, just caught for different crimes. Misogynistic men were NOT normative men at all and were just a low minority of men.
Involuntarily celibate men were not more misogynistic or violent, and actually were less so. The ones who are misogynistic and self-identify as incels (most reject the incel label) are just exceptions. The "manosphere" is the vocal minority of misogynists, whereas the usual ones are a silent, ignored majority. Misogynistic men and rapists don't struggle with dating nor are they inexperienced with dating/sex.
Obviously, there are people who say "well they probably overreport how many partners they have" but these men exaggerate how unsuccessful they are with dating, so why would they overreport many sex partners and make themselves look confusing? They're probably being truthful, especially given that they're found to be prone to short-term mating (despite also being in relationships, too). There are rapists who rape little kids or old women, but those are the low minority of rapists. Most sexual abuse of children involves fondling and elderly people are rarely sexually assaulted. Rapists' victims, even older rapist's victims, tend to be disproportionately young women, with the typical age of rape victims being the age women's reproductive value peaks and that most men find the most attractive. Even robbers who rape their victims have younger victims, on average, compared to robbers who only rob them. This is true regardless of robbers' age. Female homicide victims who were raped also tend be younger than female victims of homicide who also were victims of theft.
TL;DR
These are the men feminists generalize men off of, despite being a low minority of men, and most men being the polar opposite of them. Dark triad men who believe they need to be the most promiscuous stud on Earth (and engage in promiscuity) despite not wanting to engage in promiscuity, and who believe they should be hypermasculine because of their concerns about how it affects their mating success are the only kind of men who are misogynistic.
The irony is feminists engage in a lot of virgin shaming.

RELIVE HER TRAUMAS… of course an embarrassing spelling error happened in the title where I can’t fix it… I am sorry
Since you liked the excerpt, I thought I would share the whole thing with you. It's a lecture I will give at university for my students. And I will probably use it as a YouTube Script as well. This is an updated version, since many of you were very helpful in the comments to point out mistakes and general weaknesses:
How Mary I forced Elizabeth I to relive Anne Boleyn’s Traumas

I. Introduction
In the fall of 1558, Queen Mary I eventually acknowledged her half-sister Elizabeth as her rightful successor to the throne. However, the events that led to Elizabeth's ascension were a harrowing tale of betrayal, psychological warfare, treason, and cruelty. Mary made every effort to avoid naming Elizabeth as her heir until her last breath.
Mary, during her entire reign, feared Elizabeth and was convinced that she was conspiring against her. Elizabeth’s mother Anne Boleyn, who had successfully pushed Katherine of Aragon as queen aside, treated Mary terribly. Anne had instructed servants to physically and mentally punish her whenever she claimed to be the legitimate princess. Mary's father, Henry, was even worse than Anne. He would have probably executed her if she had refused to acknowledge him as the head of the church. He only allowed Mary one short visit to her mother within the last five years of Katherine's life. Now, Elizabeth, who was the offspring of these two demons in Mary's life, was old enough to threaten her.
The bitter irony is that Elizabeth was deathly scared of her half-sister, Mary, too. For as long as she could remember, Mary kept her distance or treated her outright horribly. Even though Elizabeth was Mary's heir by law, Mary never re-legitimized her. They were both daughters of Henry VIII, the man who had Elizabeth's mother executed when she was only 3 years old. Because of this, Elizabeth had to grow up without a loving and stable maternal figure in her life, and she learned she could trust no one early on.
Elizabeth's and Mary's fates were intertwined through their parents Henry VIII, Katherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn. The two half-sisters knew each other's weaknesses all too well: their mothers. And Mary was willing to use this knowledge to her advantage.

II. Mary’s psychological warfare against Elizabeth started long before the Tower
Mary's reign began on a positive note. She managed to oust Lady Jane Grey, who was named as the successor to her half-brother Edward VI, in just nine days. The people of London celebrated the start of her rule with great enthusiasm. An unknown resident of the Tower of London described the celebrations as follows: "I have never seen anything like it. Countless bonfires lit up the streets, people threw money out of their windows to share their joy, the bells were ringing, and the people sang in the streets." [I modernized this quote]
All of this happened before Mary even entered the capital herself. She arrived on August 3rd, 1553, accompanied by Elizabeth, around 1000 nobles, and 9000 men of the guard. There were more soldiers on the streets to secure her way into the city. According to the Chronicle of the Grey Friars, every building was decorated to celebrate her arrival and the people wore their finest clothes. While riding, Mary shouted her favorite quote from the holy book, "When God is with us, who can be against us?" [Romans 8:31]. This sentence was the core philosophy that Mary had started to structure her whole existence around.
The resident of the tower had noticed something small that marred the celebrations when the new queen and her subjects arrived. A stage had been set up, and some children were performing on it. One of them had given a short speech, but Mary had remained silent and did not respond to it.
It became a recurring pattern that she struggled to comprehend the expectations of her subjects.
Mary found herself in a difficult situation. She knew that a significant portion of the population were Protestants and were unhappy about losing power. She was certain that a rebellion would start sooner or later. The person who could potentially figurehead such an uprising better than anyone else was Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth. An additional problem was that Mary couldn't trust her government, as they had previously worked for her father, brother, and Jane. Therefore, she needed to find a new circle of trustworthy advisers.
Mary likely realized at the beginning of her reign why her half-brother Edward had named Jane as his heir instead of Elizabeth. If Jane were to fail, another person would still be available to carry on. Mary couldn't touch Elizabeth, as she was her heir by law. She also couldn't change the law, as it had legitimized her queenship as well. She had just used it to push Jane aside.
Mary tried to replace Elizabeth by favoring her longtime friend Margaret Douglas. This caused Elizabeth to lose her position as second in status, as reported by the French ambassador. Margaret was the daughter of Margaret Tudor and Archibald Douglas, and on the orders of Mary, she was given a room decorated with purple velvet and gold cloth, previously reserved for the sovereign of England, to sleep in. Mary also gifted her some lands that were originally owned by the crown.
Margaret was a Catholic and a lifelong friend of Mary, making her an ideal replacement for Elizabeth. Moreover, she was the heir presumptive of Henry VIII between 1536 and 1537, while Mary and Elizabeth were not part of the succession during that time, and Edward had not been born yet. According to Margaret’s secretary Thomas Bishop, his employer seemed to have shared Mary's hatred for Elizabeth.
In 1554, Margaret obtained chambers in Westminster located directly above Elizabeth's room. Bishop reports suggest that Margaret tormented her half-sister of the queen by throwing wooden logs, pots, and other containers to the ground, worsening Elizabeth's migraine attacks. Margaret denied these accusations, and no one, not even Elizabeth, confirmed their validity. If the accusations were true, it's hard to imagine she committed these acts without Mary's approval. The fear of being replaced and the torments Margaret inflicted on Elizabeth mirrored what Anne had to endure after Henry fell out of love with her.
Mary’s problems with Elizabeth got worse: Several powerful and influential men expressed an interest in marrying Elizabeth. However, Mary's advisors intervened each time, possibly under her orders. One example was Edward Courtenay, whose match with Mary's lady-in-waiting, Jane Dormer, was pushed by Bishop Stephen Gardener to make it impossible for the Earl of Devonshire to marry the queen's half-sister. If such a couple had produced an heir, their child would have been third in line for the throne. Additionally, the couple would have united significant resources.
Mary became increasingly concerned about the idea of Elizabeth marrying an English noble. So, she decided to take the official route to change the succession. It didn’t even come to a vote. Elizabeth was very popular with the people – and parliament rejected the wish of the queen outright. This was almost without precedent: Normally, every monarch got the right to name his successor. The last time a king had to accept an heir, he didn’t want, was when Henry VI had to confirm Richard of York. Mary’s relationship with parliament was strained – which was normal for a monarch but not for Mary who longed for appreciation and confirmation.
And the Queen’s fears regarding her half-sister seemed to manifest when Mary sought marriage to the Spanish Prince Philip – a staunch Catholic. Apart from Mary nobody loved the idea – to put it mildly. Not even the groom was thrilled about it. He saw it as a political alliance and nothing more. One of his servants should write that he admired his master, cause Mary wasn’t nice to look at and couldn’t give him any pleasure. A man named Thomas Wyatt opposed the marriage plans so strongly that he decided to take up arms against the Queen. And suddenly a match between Elizabeth and Courtenay became a real threat to the queen.

III. Wyatt’s rebellion
Mary feared her half-sister would undo her catholic restoration. And she had only one legal way to remove Elizabeth as her successor: If she had a legitimate child, he or she would inherit the crown. For this reason, she started to look for a husband. Philip wasn’t the first idea. Two names were propounded prominently within England: Courtenay and Reginald Pole. The latter was a cardinal, which would have caused problems. However, the example of Cesare Borgia 50 years earlier demonstrated they would have been surmountable. But Mary’s cousin Emperor Charles V intervened. He wanted Mary to accept his only legitimate son Philip as her husband. The Queen was thrilled with the idea after seeing a portrait of Philip painted by Titian.
The House of Commons and even Mary's own Lord Chancellor Bishop Stephen Gardiner protested and petitioned that Mary should seek a match with an Englishman. They feared that England would become just another part of the vast Habsburg Empire, which Philip, and his possible sons with Mary, would inherit one day.
Mary and Philip had to accept a compromise that they both hated. Months later, Parliament passed the Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain, which stated that the Habsburg heir would be treated as a co-monarch. He would enjoy all of Mary's titles and honors as long as she lived. Every official document would have to be dated with both of their names, and Parliament would be called under both of their names. Coins would be minted with both of their faces. However, England wouldn't be obliged to support Philip's father in any war, and Mary would still be the higher authority. Even so, they co-reigned, and in private life, Mary had to obey him as it was customary, she was still the ruling monarch.
Mary took steps to dispel the notion that Philip would only be a king consort. She had laws passed in England and Ireland to make it high treason to deny Philip's royal authority. The marriage treaty was officially presented to the queen's privy council on December 7th, 1553. According to the Tower resident, the general public was not informed about the marriage plans until November. It is likely that Mary only announced her intention to marry Philip after she knew he would accept. Although Philip had been married before, the couple did not have any healthy children.
Around the same time, Mary's spies reported that new visitors had started to visit Elizabeth's household in Hertfordshire. Elizabeth had left the court early after Mary's coronation on October 1st, 1553, in which she had played a ceremonial role alongside Anne of Cleves.
Every one of Elizabeth’s new guests despised the idea of the Spanish marriage and wanted to take action against it. Among these conspirators was Sir William Loe, one of Elizabeth's servants, who played a key role in the group. Loe's family had previously supported Lady Jane Grey, who was still alive during this time. Therefore, the half-sister of the queen very likely knew that something was going on. Elizabeth chose to stay out of the conspiracy and did not actively participate. She was aware of Mary's spies monitoring her movements and knew that one wrong move could put everything at risk.
Other key conspirators included Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger from Kent, Edward Courtenay, Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, as well as Sir Peter Carew. While some describe Courtenay as the last living Plantagenet due to his great-grandfather being Edward IV, this is not entirely accurate as members of the Pole family were still alive. Mary had ordered Courtenay's release from the Tower the year before. Therefore, his involvement in the conspiracy must have been especially painful for the queen.
Wyatt was a skilled and charismatic soldier who was chosen to lead the rebels' main force, consisting of 3000 men. The insurrectionists planned to replace Mary with Elizabeth and have her marry Courtenay to rule together and restore Protestantism. This was Mary's worst fear.
Initially, the plan was to start four different uprisings on March 18th, 1554 to overwhelm the royal forces. Additionally, the French fleet was supposed to prevent Philip from reaching England. However, the date had to be moved up because the wedding preparations were progressing much faster than expected.
The uprisings were scheduled to begin on January 25th, but they only happened at the Welsh border at first. Mary requested Elizabeth to come to London, but she refused, citing sickness. She was scared of being arrested. This fear was not baseless, as English monarchs had a track record of imprisoning those who could potentially challenge their rule.
Mary's government responded by immediately sending forces to stop Wyatt, who had already begun his military operation. To the Queen's horror, her soldiers defected to the rebel side as soon as they saw them. This created an open path to London. Mary's finest moment as Queen came on February 1st when she walked to the guild hall with her scepter and coronation ring. She climbed a flight of stairs to a stage and addressed the people directly. Mary promised not to marry Philip if parliament voted against it, emphasizing that she was already married to England. She made a point of showing her coronation ring to demonstrate her commitment to ruling for the good of the people. It is worth noting that different versions of her speech were recorded, and for example John Foxe does not include her promise about marriage. However, his account is based on a second-hand source.
Whatever Mary’s actual words were, they worked: Wyatt needed the support of the citizens of London. Otherwise, royal forces in such a number (and sufficiently loyal to Mary) would arrive soon enough to prevent him from fulfilling the plan. When he tried to enter the capital, the people started to fight him. And the guard in the city didn’t just surrender. The main force of the rebellion crumbled to dust at the gates of London in February. The tables had turned. And Elizabeth was up to relive the trauma of her mother.

IV. Elizabeth is a prisoner in the Tower
Wyatt surrendered on February 8th and was immediately interrogated under torture. Even before he named Elizabeth, Mary had summoned her half-sister once again. But this time, the queen was better prepared and sent her physicians with her envoys in case Elizabeth would feel too sick to travel again. The half-sister of the Queen once more refused to come to London, citing an illness. However, Mary’s physicians ruled that, although the illness was real, it wasn’t severe enough to prevent her from coming to London.
Elizabeth was then transferred to Ashridge House, located 30 minutes north of London, where her interrogations began [Domestic State Papers]. She was pale and dressed completely in white. Lord Howard, Sir Edward Hastings, and Sir Thomas Cornwaleys reported back to Mary on February 11th that the princess was willing to return to court and repair her relationship with the Queen and only asked to be lodged further from the water than the last time. Elizabeth asserted her innocence concerning the insurrection.
Mary was unable to deal with Elizabeth immediately due to a lack of time. The Queen finally permitted the execution of Lady Jane Grey, whom the rebels saw as a potential alternative to Elizabeth. Although London was under control, the rest of the country was still in disarray. On February 24th, Thomas Culpepper, an older half-brother of the one who had an inappropriate relationship with his cousin Catherine Howard, reported to Mary that there were still insurrections occurring throughout England in opposition to her Spanish marriage.
In response to this, the crown reacted harshly. Captured rebels were executed, and their leaders were subjected to severe interrogations. One day after Culpepper's report, Mary's secretary John Bourne informed her that he had "worked hard to make Sir Thomas Wyatt confess concerning the Lady Elizabeth and her servant, Sir William Loe" [I modernized this quote]. The accused confessed, implicating the queen's half-sister and stating that Sir James Croft, one of the rebel leaders, had more information. Croft was one of the men who received a pardon later on and was treated favorably by Elizabeth during her reign.
Mary ordered the arrest of her half-sister. She should be held in the Tower. The walls were closing in on the 21-year-old princess quickly. Elizabeth panicked and wrote the Queen. The document referred to as the "Tide Letter" showcases Elizabeth's intelligence in multiple ways. On the second page of the letter, lines are drawn across the blank space above her signature to prevent the insertion of false information. Additionally, she wrote the letter deliberately slowly, ensuring that by the time it was completed, the evening low tide had passed, and boats couldn’t safely pass London Bridge. This bought her an extra day outside of the Tower. Thus, the document is called the "Tide letter.”
The last line of the letter, just above her signature, reads: "I humbly crave but only one worde of answer from yourself". She never received it. The next day, she was taken to the Tower of London, arriving at 10:00 in the morning. Although rumors circulated that she had entered the complex through Traitor's Gate, this was not true. Instead, she had used a drawbridge for entry, and upon arrival, some soldiers knelt in front of her. This means that she probably entered the Tower via the Private Postern Gate, which is today’s Byward Tower – just like her mother 17 days before her execution. She was brought into the very same lodgings Anne was held in. They were comfortable and matched her rank, but they were without any question psychologically torturous all the same.
Upon entering the Tower, the resident reported her words to the soldiers saying, "Oh Lord, I never thought I would come here as a prisoner. I pray that you, my good friends and fellows, will bear witness that I come as no traitor, but as a faithful woman to Her Majesty the Queen. I am willing to take my death for this." [I modernized this quote]
Shortly after, she asked the Lord Chamberlain if all the armored soldiers would be present because of her, but he denied it. However, Elizabeth did not believe him and insisted that they were there for her. She also mentioned that there was no need for them, as she was nothing but a weak woman. After she was taken to the Queen's lodgings, the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Treasurer locked the doors tightly. They consulted with each other and, with quote “weeping eyes”, decided to only follow the exact commission given to them, considering that Elizabeth was the daughter of a king and the sister of the Queen.
John Gage served as the Lord Chamberlain and Constable of the Tower during Elizabeth's imprisonment. William Paulet, who had previously served as a judge in the trials of John Fischer, Thomas More, and Anne Boleyn, was appointed by Mary to deal with Elizabeth in the Tower. Despite Paulet's involvement in the trials of Elizabeth's mother, she had a good relationship with him.
As a prisoner, Elizabeth had the privilege of going for walks, and she was able to talk to other prisoners. The road from the Bell Tower to Beauchamp Tower, which ran alongside the Royal Mint, became known as "Elizabeth’s Walk". Although it is unclear how much she knew about events outside of the Tower, she likely suspected that her life was in danger. Elizabeth was interrogated several times, and she complained bitterly about being forced to justify her movements from one of her houses to another. Her accusers had found a letter from rebels warning her to avoid London on the day of the insurrection, but they did not explain the reason. Elizabeth responded that she would comply with the warning.
Mary initially wanted Elizabeth executed when she was imprisoned in the Tower. Gardener and the imperial ambassador supported this view, arguing that Mary's rule could never be secure as long as Elizabeth was alive. However, Charles V intervened, concerned about Elizabeth's popularity, and advised Mary to gather proof before taking any action. Mary, who considered Charles her "real father," heeded his advice. She tasked her "specialists" to find evidence and/or extract it from the rebels through torture. Mary's propagandists also worked to undermine Elizabeth's popularity by connecting her to the rebellion. Elizabeth was interrogated again, and Mary's Lord Chancellor Gardener personally got involved.
As the anniversary of Anne Boleyn's execution neared, Elizabeth knew that whatever her fate would be, it would reveal itself on this day. On the morning of May 19th, the Constable and his Lieutenant awaited her, accompanied by guards. Around 70 years later, Peter Heylyn, one of the future Charles I's lecturers, would describe Gage as a bitter enemy of Elizabeth. Mary had made her decision.
Let’s continue this next week...

Disney's Hive And Prejudice which is an adaptation of Jane Austen's classic "Pride & Prejudice".
It's kinda surprising Disney hasn't adapted anything from Jane Austen both then and now considering her works are classics and they pretty much fit the message of "true love" in Disney. Plus they would fit the ideals of love now since the love interests of her novels actually meet and get to know each other.
The movie is basically Disney's equivalent to the Bee Movie where it's basically one big professional copypasta.
Plot
The film opens with a parody of the opening of Pride and Prejudice: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single bee does not need to possess a good fortune or be in want of a wife. Luckily this is a fairytale about talking bees so we can ignore reality for today”.
The movie starts in the early 19th century and shows a park in England with humans dressed in bonnets and top hats and stuff but then it zooms into a beehive which is the setting of the actual story. The Beennet family live at their Longbourn estate at Beevington inside a bee hive. Mrs Beennet's greatest desire is to marry off her five daughters to secure their futures and we are seen and introduced to them through song (“Estate Mates”).
The arrival of Mr. Stingley, a rich bachelor who lives next door in the neighboring Nectarfield estate, gives Mrs. Bee-nnet hope that one of her daughters might have an advantageous marriage. One of her daughters, Elizabeth, refuses and wants to marry not simply out of estate or fortune but wanting genuine love (“The Honey Beneath”). Also living in Mr. Stingley's estate is his sisters Louisa and Caroline who leech off him to throw extravagant parties where they have people they don't like get eaten by their giant pet honey badger Penny Winkly (“Lou and Carol”).
The Beennets end up attending Mr. Stingley's extravagant ball (“Gentleman Of The Pollen”). At a ball, the family is introduced to Mr Hive Darcy, his dearest friend. Charles appears interested in Jane, the eldest Bennet daughter. Mr Darcy, reputed to be twice as wealthy as Mr Stingley, is haughty and aloof, causing a decided dislike of him. The two argue and then decide to resort to a duel in the ball with pistols made of honey cones and pollen instead of bullets and both shoot each other and get covered in pollen and coughing. During the ballroom dance, Darcy declines to dance with Elizabeth as she is "not handsome enough", which Elizabeth is deeply offended by but copes by joking about it.
Meanwhile, Louisa and Caroline also find interest in Darcy. They plan on trying to get Caroline to get Darcy to be with him, marry him, kill him, and get The Stingley's to own both estates (“Lou and Carol” reprisal). Despite their first impression, Mr Darcy secretly begins to like Elizabeth as they continue to encounter each other at social events, and the two begin to know each other. Louisa and Carolina spread a rumor that an army officer George Wickham dealt with unpleasant treatment from Mr. Darcy in the past. Elizabeth, believes the rumor and agrees to marry Mr Collins, the heir to the Longbourn estate under the advice of Lady Catherine de Bug, who also happens to be Mr Darcy's aunt (“Why Is Love So Hard?”).
Mr. Darcy hears that Elizabeth is off to marry someone else and is heartbroken (“Trapped In The Sap”). He meets Elizabeth at another ball where Elizabeth and Darcy dance again where Elizabeth rejects Mr Collins' marriage proposal, to the Stingley sister's fury and her father's relief. Mr Collins instead proposes to Charlotte, a friend of Elizabeth. Louisa and Caroline end up kidnapping Elizabeth and telling their entire motivations not expecting Elizabeth to live to tell the tale and throws her outside of the hive. Elizabeth ends up outside lost in the wilderness. Having heard Elizabeth's disappearance at the ball and disapproving of the marriage, Mr Darcy joins Mr Stingley in a trip to the Queen Bee's palace to met her and the Bee Regent and, with the help of his sisters, persuades him to marry Caroline and not to return to Nectarfield. Meanwhile Elizabeth's hatred for love grows as she suspects it was responsible for her own departure (“Love Ruins Your Life”). She eventually stays in the home of a pair of hornets who tell her that Mr. Darcy reminds them of someone that saved their friend from an undesirable match, reminding her of Stingley and they help her get back to the hive, with the wedding occurring at Roseings Park. She stops the wedding and exposes Louisa and Caroline's motivations, with the former deciding to use her stinger to kill both of them, which it briefly does but Elizabeth survives due to wearing a stinger proof vest underneath. Mr Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, declaring his love for her despite her low social connections. She is shocked, as she was unaware of Mr Darcy's interest, and says yes. Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy return to Nectarfield. Lady Catherine, having heard that Elizabeth intends to marry Mr Darcy, visits her and demands she promise never to accept Mr Darcy's proposal, as she and Darcy's late mother had already planned his marriage to her daughter Anne. Elizabeth refuses and asks the outraged Lady Catherine to leave. They two are finally happily married ("Let Them Grow") and the Bee Queen suddenly dies during the wedding, meaning the Bee Regent is finally queen, ending “The Bee Regency”.
Cast

• Millie Bobby Brown as Elizabeth Beennet
• Tom Holland as Mr. Hive Darcy
• Henry Cavill as Mr. Charles Stingley
• Margot Robbie as Louisa Stingley
• Emma Stone as Caroline Stingley
• Domhnall Gleeson as Mr. Collins
• Helen Mirren as Lady Catherine de Bug
• Lily James as Jane Beennet
• Saoirse Ronan as Charlotte Lucas
• Simon Farnaby as Bee Queen
• Gemma Whelan as Bee Regent
• Richard Madden as George Wickham
• Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Beennet
• Adjoa Andoh as Mrs. Beennet
• Tilly Keeper as Mary Beennet
• Millie Gibson as Kitty Beennet
• David Tennant as Colonel Flywilliam (Fly Character)
• Rose Ayling-Ellis as Lydia Beennet
• Stephen Fry as Zara (Hornet Character)
• John Cleese as Buzzwell (Hornet Character)

Notes

• The movie is handdrawn like Disney's old features such as the Lion King and Aladdin. I just find it funny that the first major handdrawn film in decades by Disney would be basically just a giant shitpost.
• There's a joke about the BBC and where they call it "The Bee Bee Bee Bee Bee C".

Elizabeth Carnot
Courtier and socialite of the Báthory clan. More affectionately known as “Lizzy” by her compatriots and future victims alike. A woman of beauty but not overwhelmingly so. Her reserved but humble spirit really shines through and makes her one of those naturally likable vampires unlike many of her hyper aristocratic associates who cannot say the word “kindness” without blushing. Careful not to get too close though. Because like all vampires, she has a dark side. And if you’re on the receiving end, you might find yourself browsing the giftshop in Heaven.
Why would I say such an awful thing? Well. She did make her first appearance in the short story “Same Color as Darkness,” and I do suggest you read it. She is a classy vampire who would be fun to sit down and share a cup of coffee with. Someone to trade stories with and maybe even a laugh or two. I bet some of her kills are brutal. Who knows. Maybe we’ll sit down and have that conversation one day? If we do, I’ll certainly let you guys know.
Her official job title is Curator of the Báthory Historical Museum. This is a mostly symbolic/cushy position since her presence is hardly required. Museum, huh? Yup. Every ruler (minor houses included) is expected to maintain one as a matter of prestige. Even the rumor of not having one in good working order is scandalous. It’s also one of the quickest ways to get uninvited from the next big social gathering. And for a blueblood elite, this would be political suicide. Plan on visiting? Don’t bother. They’re closed to the public. Permission can only be granted by the curator. If you ever somehow get an invite, remember the golden rule: “Don’t touch anything.”
Anyway, so when she isn’t wasting her time entertaining shallow elites with museum tours, she can be found helping her father in his role as factor. He was originally employed by Marie’s father, but given his friendly relationship with Marie, he maintained his position once she became countess. What’s a factor? It’s exactly what it sounds like; a thankless number-crunching job. Above being outstanding at auditing, a good controller knows how to say “no” without saying “no” when it’s “Not in the budget.” A good factor is also a master at persuading the spoiled children of aristocrats that the shiny new thing they simply can’t do without isn’t really all that shiny.
Elizabeth’s Past:
Like most vampires born into the upper end of the social echelon, tragedy struck soon and often. Her mother was assassinated by a bitter rival when she was just a young child. It is assumed her mother slighted some snooty French noble of no significance who probably took his status as a Bourbon courtier a little too seriously and that was that. He placed a contract on the Network to have her killed. Some eager, starving rogue-watcher probably took up the contract. And when that happened, it was curtains for her poor mother. Sadly, no one knows how it happened. All we know is that her dear mother turned up dead a few days after the insult.
When his wife died. Their status died with her. Fearing for the safety of his daughter, Philip sought protection as an expatriate under the Báthory banner. Because of this, Lizzy came of age in the Báthoric court. Other than the faint hint of a French-vampiric accent, she has no ties to her old European order. She is also around the same age as Marie, so she was lucky in that sense, to have grown up around the same time as the other friends in the countess’ social circle. As a sort of cherry on top, she is one of the few associates the countess has who hasn’t been shuffled off into a loveless marriage, shipped off to some foggy territory as an administrator, or outright assassinated by a jealous rival. And from the way things are looking, she probably won’t, given her predestined duties to the countess and to the royal house.
You’re probably asking yourself, “What preordained duties?” See. Her father, “Philip the Frank.” He’s getting long in the tooth and will probably retire any moment now. It’s way past rumors, more like a foregone conclusion that his daughter, Lizzy, will take his place as factor. She is the one shining star in his otherwise dull and somewhat unremarkable life. He networked tirelessly to provide his only child with a proper education and made sure that he opened as many doors as possible so he could make her transition into adulthood as smooth as possible.
Luckily for him all his hard work paid off, which is something a lot of nobles cannot say, due to their offspring turning out to be degenerate partygoers. She turned out to be a refined young lady defined by her aptitude for number-crunching just like her dad. But unlike him, she isn’t as dull as an old silver spoon. She studied her surroundings, made friends in all the right places, and charmed her way into the hearts and minds of the royal family. She has a neck for navigating the halls and back rooms of the bloodthirsty nobility with a finesse rarely seen.
In conclusion, hers is a story that demonstrates just how important the social and bureaucratic worlds are within the vampire community. She does so rather elegantly, weaving the two worlds together in a way unique to her character and to the Angel Hunters Universe. Unlike what is portrayed in media, the vampire world isn’t this self-sustaining, predatory genus. It’s just as complicated and muddied in nuisance as the human experience.
That’s right. Vampires are not thoughtless creatures of the night. If they were, they wouldn’t exist because we (humans) would have wiped them out or been wiped out by them by now. Lizzy is not a “low-class” vampire, so her character offers few insights into that brutal dichotomy. Who or what she is, is a steel bridge between the elites and the mega elites. Her role as curator is prestigious enough. She is well pedigreed, being a blueblood and all. Has a large social circle—which is something every vampiric aristocrat measures themselves by. Well, expect for weirdos like William Chosen and Brandon Nightfall. Who she isn’t is Annemarie Bathory. A blueblood born into unimaginable wealth and power who our story revolves around.
I like Lizzy. She reminds me of how far away from my dreams I truly am. Every day I reach for the moon, but when it’s finally time to come back down to earth, I’d like to have those same dreams sat down next to my imagination ever so gently, upon a bed of soft feathery pillows. And if it can be with ideas and metaphors instead of unkind words, my descent will be even sweeter. See. If I was a vampire, I’d be a low-class brood. She is the one I’d eventually see if I were to, let’s say, complain about the countess’ unwieldly order at some ungodly boutique I managed. Or maybe the conduct of her debauched friends went a little too far this time around at a party I bartended? Who knows. All I know is I love minutia almost as much as I love a good story.
And what’s a good story without the little things, like a maidservant or two wanting a new mangle wringer so that the halls of the courtyard house they live in smell like fresh linen. A frugal request their boss, the wicked “overseer,” would have to put in a call to Lizzy about if the angry damsels complained enough. The mean overseer would speak to the kind Lady Carnot. The two would have a brief but cordial conversation about things only nobles converse about as she coolly checks the numbers on the laptop in her cluttered office, before kindly disapproving his request. The angry maidservants would gossip a bit after learning that their request was denied, blame the overseer for their misfortunes, and then find something else to focus their fickle ire upon as they toiled away at the Báthory estate upon yet another hot summer day.

I don't know how many times I have rewatched Reign and every time I come back I can still enjoy it over and over again, they do not make shows like this anymore. However there is something that just doesn't sit right with me since watching the 4th Season. It seems like after Lola's death, Mary became enraged to the point to where she's do anything to defeat Elizabeth which is what I think costs Mary her life in the end. She made mistake after mistake leading to a chain of events that resulted in Elizabeth's victory and I'd like to know your thoughts on this topic. I also would like to hear any and all critique's and opinions on Reign as a series. I'll go first...
It seemed like Mary had no chance. From what she said Scotland was smaller than England and Queen Elizabeth was extremely paranoid that her cousin would overthrow her someday. Mary wasn't even close to her cousin's aggressiveness and cunning. Mary's ladies were all gone, except Greer and I felt like she was isolated and her enemies were all around her. In some cases they were staring her right in the damn face...John Knox! This was her natural enemy and while she did do some scheming, Mary should of eliminated him from the very beginning, Narcisse was so captivated with rage and sadistic that he removed the man's genitals and allowed him to live...maybe to get secret revenge on Mary. Why kill John Knox when He can punish him and then let him live so he can go on to destroy the woman he loathe s the most, The Queen of Scots. Mary also eventually lost her brother and I'm not going to even discuss the way the writer treated Sebastian, his life was horrible. Mary lost all of her allies and the worst thing she did was marry Darnley. That was pure arrogance, hubris, and wrath. Mary was so obsessed with power and revenge that she married a literally snake in the grass. I understand Elizabeth was a major problem that needed to be dealt with, but there had to a been a way for her to claim the English throne strategically without her losing all her logic and rational thinking.
As for Reign overall, I guess the show's biggest mistake for me was making the show a historical fiction. I don't know why they choose to make this show jive with reality, but I would have been so much better if the show had the freedom to do it's own thing. Maybe it was a copyright issues, I don't know. If the show wasn't historical fiction and was supernatural or fantasy, the writers could of had more creative liberties. No I'm not trying to make the show into Game of Thrones, I'm just saying that that could of been their work around, so when people question the authenticity of the show, the network is shield from backlash.
Francis wouldn't have had to die, Sebastian could have been given real supernatural gifts beyond future sight, and the crowning achievement of the show...Mary and Elizabeth could have actually met! I heard that the show ended mainly because nobody would watch it after Francis died, so there problem solved! I'm not going to lie though, I did enjoy seeing Mary on her own sometimes. If I saw both Queens in the same room, arguing with each other my head would have exploded because the show hyped up this bitter never-ending rivalry for a very long time. One last flaw of the show, the music. The music felt so repetitive by the third season. Sorry for the long post, but I hope you'll share your thoughts and opinions.

Best Picture- * The Apartment * West Side Story * Lawrence Of Arabia * Tom Jones! * My Fair Lady * The Sound Of Music * A Man For All Seasons * In The Heat Of The Night * Oliver! * Midnight Cowboy
Best Director- * Billy Wilder-The Apartment * Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise-West Side Story * David Lean-Lawrence Of Arabia * Tony Richardson-Tom Jones! * George Cukor-My Fair Lady * Robert Wise-The Sound Of Music * Fred Zinnemann-A Man For All Seasons * Mike Nichols-The Graduate * Carol Reed-Oliver! * John Schlesinger-Midnight Cowboy
Best Actor- * Burt Lancaster-Elmer Gantry * Maximillian Schnell-Judgement at Nuremberg * Gregory Peck-To Kill A Mockingbird * Sidney Poitier-Lilies Of The Field * Rex Harrison-My Fair Lady * Lee Marvin-Cat Ballou * Paul Scofield-A Man For All Seasons * Rod Steiger-In The Heat Of The Night * Cliff Robertson-Charly * John Wayne-True Grit
Best Actress- * Elizabeth Taylor-BUtterfield 8 * Sophia Loren-Two Women * Anne Bancroft-The Miracle Worker * Patricia Neal-Hud * Julie Andrews-Mary Poppins * Julie Christie-Darling * Elizabeth Taylor-Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? * Katharine Hepburn-Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? * Katharine Hepburn-The Lion In Winter * Barbra Streisand-Funny Girl * Maggie Smith-The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie
Best Supporting Actor- * Peter Ustinov-Spartacus * George Chakiris-West Side Story * Ed Begley-Sweet Bird Of Youth * Melvyn Douglas-Hud * Peter Ustinov-Topkapi * Martin Balsam-A Thousand Clowns * Walter Matthau-The Fortune Cookie * George Kennedy-Cool Hand Luke * Jack Albertson-The Subject Was Roses * Gig Young-They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
Best Supporting Actress- * Shirley Jones-Elmer Gantry * Rita Moreno-West Side Story * Patty Duke-The Miracle Worker * Margaret Rutherford-The V.I.P.s * Lila Kedrova-Zorba The Greek * Shelley Winters-A Patch Of Blue * Sandy Dennis-Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? * Estelle Parsons-Bonnie and Clyde * Ruth Gordon-Rosemary's Baby * Goldie Hawn-Cactus Flower
Best Original Screenplay- * The Apartment * Splendor In The Grass * Divorce Italian Style * How The West Was Won * Father Goose * Darling * A Man And A Woman * Guess Who's Coming To Dinner * The Producers * Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
Best Adapted Screenplay- * Elmer Gantry * Judgement at Nuremberg * To Kill A Mockingbird * Tom Jones! * Becket * Doctor Zhivago * A Man For All Seasons * In The Heat Of The Night * The Lion In Winter * Midnight Cowboy

Did we discuss Fisher House before? They seem to be providing services to veterans and also hand out a number of awards, in collaboration with Military Times.
Here is their webpage: https://fisherhouse.org/about/
Madam visited a Fisher House in connection with Ingriftus Dusseldorf:
https://archive.ph/nTCJG
​
Fisher Houses are given to the U. S. Government as gifts. Military service secretaries and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the homes. Fisher House Foundation, Inc., a not-for-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, builds new houses and assists in the coordination of private support while encouraging public support for the homes.

The Basics

• Proximity to hospital – most houses are within walking distance to the hospital, however, when they are not, transportation is provided to and from the hospital.
• Safety is important! There is a key or fob to get into the Fisher House and a key to get into your private suite. VA campus police or military police are in the area to ensure everyone’s safety.

Board of Trustees

Founders Zachary Fisher (1910-1999) Elizabeth M. Fisher (1913-2004)

Officers

Kenneth Fisher, Chairman and CEO @KenFisherFHF Read His Bio > Winston Fisher, Vice Chairman Nancy Edelman, Vice Chairman David D. Fox, CFO & Treasurer

Trustees

Gerry Byrne Paul W. Bucha Cecily M. Carson Lieutenant General John A. Dubia, USA (Ret.) Martin L. Edelman Tammy Fisher Crystal Fisher Mark “Ranger” Jones Rear Admiral Thomas C. Lynch, USN (Ret.) David J. McIntyre, Jr. Bruce Mosler General Richard B. Myers, USAF (Ret.) Mary Jo Myers Lynne Pace Kyra Phillips Maj Gen John Quintas, USAF (Ret.) Suzie Schwartz Lieutenant General Martin R. Steele, USMC (Ret.) Montel Williams
Honorary Trustees Patricia L. Courter John Lowe Barbara Gentry Denzel Washington Pauletta Washington