ils

🔥 | Latest

Meme, Party, and Bizarre: 14 signes que vous faites réellement partie de la famille de votre meilleur(e) ami(e): 1- Sonner ou cogner à leur porte est totalement bizarre pour vous. Vous faites simplement entrer comme si c'était chez vous. 2- Au repas, y'a toujours une assiette sur la table juste pour vous. 3- Vous avez toujours du linge de rechange dans leur maison pour les fois où vous couchez là-bas... ce qui arrive TRES souvent. 4- II vous est déjà arrivé de vous retrouver seul à chiller chez eux... quand personne n'était à la maison. be 5- Parfois vous êtes même pognés pour les aider à faire les tâches... 6- Vous êtes toujours la première personne invitée à leurs party et réunions de famille. 7- Vous aimez mieux être chez votre meilleur(e) ami(e) que de rester à la maison, même si vous n'avez rien de spécial à faire là. 8- 1ls vous ont vu dans votre PIRE état EVER. Mais personne ne vous a jamais jugé. 9- Parfois vous participez même à leurs chicanes de famille et aux négociations. 10- Vous demandez toujours leur avis quand vous avez un nouveau partenaire amoureux. 11- Tous les membres de leur famille éloignée connaissent votre prénom. 12- Ils ont toujours été là pour vous... dans les pires moments. 13- Vous pourriez décider d'aménager chez eux à tout moment... 14- Car c'est complètement évident qu'ils sont votre deuxième famille :) via Québec meme VIA QCME.ME 14 signes que vous faites partie de la famille de votre meilleur(e) ami(e)
Meme, Party, and Bizarre: 14 signes que vous faites
 réellement partie de la famille
 de votre meilleur(e) ami(e):
 1- Sonner ou cogner à leur porte est
 totalement bizarre pour vous. Vous
 faites simplement entrer comme si
 c'était chez vous.
 2- Au repas, y'a toujours une assiette
 sur la table juste pour vous.
 3- Vous avez toujours du linge de
 rechange dans leur maison pour les fois
 où vous couchez là-bas... ce qui arrive
 TRES souvent.
 4- II vous est déjà arrivé de vous
 retrouver seul à chiller chez eux...
 quand personne n'était à la maison.
 be
 5- Parfois vous êtes même pognés pour
 les aider à faire les tâches...
 6- Vous êtes toujours la première
 personne invitée à leurs party et
 réunions de famille.
 7- Vous aimez mieux être chez votre
 meilleur(e) ami(e) que de rester à la
 maison, même si vous n'avez rien
 de spécial à faire là.
 8- 1ls vous ont vu dans votre PIRE
 état EVER. Mais personne ne vous
 a jamais jugé.
 9- Parfois vous participez même à
 leurs chicanes de famille et aux
 négociations.
 10- Vous demandez toujours leur avis
 quand vous avez un nouveau partenaire
 amoureux.
 11- Tous les membres de leur famille
 éloignée connaissent votre prénom.
 12- Ils ont toujours été là pour vous...
 dans les pires moments.
 13- Vous pourriez décider d'aménager
 chez eux à tout moment...
 14- Car c'est complètement évident
 qu'ils sont votre deuxième famille :)
 via Québec meme
 VIA QCME.ME
14 signes que vous faites partie de la famille de votre meilleur(e) ami(e)

14 signes que vous faites partie de la famille de votre meilleur(e) ami(e)

England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens Im fucking deceased
England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
runawayrat:

squidsticks:

King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens


Im fucking deceased

runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: i...

Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with the False Dmitries Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as False Dmitry I Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy; instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later, whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme and dubbed him False Dmitry Il At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still, whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead! gryphye ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him Then quartered hinm Then cremated what was left. Stuffed the ashes in a can And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came from. He pissed off a few people, yeah prokopetz It was a very miraculous survival Source:prokopetz 8,898 notes Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird
Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz
 Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less
 interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with
 the False Dmitries
 Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at
 the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern
 Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination
 attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business
 isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian
 throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace
 and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as
 False Dmitry I
 Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares
 himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy;
 instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his
 apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of
 False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the
 allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to
 take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he
 successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until
 his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken
 altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II
 Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking
 impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a
 waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of
 False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead
 claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not
 entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked
 a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking
 Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less
 able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later,
 whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he
 never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme
 and dubbed him False Dmitry Il
 At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources
 asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third
 False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still,
 whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole
 mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead!
 gryphye
 ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits
 False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that
 be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him
 Then quartered hinm
 Then cremated what was left.
 Stuffed the ashes in a can
 And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came
 from.
 He pissed off a few people, yeah
 prokopetz
 It was a very miraculous survival
 Source:prokopetz
 8,898 notes
Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Beer, Cher, and Crime: ART IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MATH 8 want something now And you re lucky tm quest. You are we playin, a fuckin game herepa Y fuckin years! This ts something youre go We're not asking CONNOLLY TALK we ever had." Connolly liked to say in a flourish at id, Comnolly's claims upon closer scrutiny and Flemmi were the unnamed informants has sidewalk moment with Lehr of the To induce cooperation an angry Fema the his pal Weinstein would he held hostage n S00,000 Doc and Mloe were given soe time I'll never see you again Doc said No wh stated the obvious Guess you re to two old men promised to get the money,and F a mmá to during sidewalk sh nsoch" regard, it wa.. shining moment of genuine evidence from the tapes later helped convice extortion and r gt Russ, and Carrozza of e h fe seering the FRI toward Vanessa's cher than Whitey Bulger e dough Vanessa's was listed in city records as being The next day, as investigaton Weinstein carried a white plastic shopping baly Smy Park Plaza Hotel. He handed the bagto and 5250,000 in cash, the first instalment The e the Vanessa's storeroom and gloated as they splu shares of s40,000 Those assholes, this beer be dtcthe auent suburb of Belmont, the eatery Mercuno, a Mafia soldier and pandoned would become an FBl imformant.) ged lemmi begin telling Connolly about lthe Italian eatery Flemm, nor Bulger, was aten e de pending business was sorting out the Even without all of the dialogue, the Glhe odBuge's gang rollowing one meeting cials and federal prosecutors, particularly jenemish T Organized Crime Stnike Fonce were icesedThe rara was still ongoing, and they Vanessa's had gotten out But the reportens had bhue Mercunio was rendly" with him a hitey Buiger hbe ds when he was a messenger and lhaison betw eehTte plind wanted to nla Pemmt added that Mercurio was in charg The Hill and serting up the erwnen the groups to discuss changing the ans so that they could al rake in even n he w meeting a week l he once ongoung negon wdange the payodf odds on the ilegal nun...games and about In fact it turned out that Connolly wansed to ils debute or, as it was confidentially referred to. Opeaton developed a kind of stump speech in which hedestbedNa ·í_kby second in a "mlogy" of major Mafia bup theint bergh rite Street bug that the FBI w ould never hase gometnotfr ebteegal football betting cards during that fall's footbal old Connolly. "The Mafia intends to chop up the whole city powmble by controlling all independent bookmakers. He re ind etheMaha was on the march" into the suburbs and said that way to the secret session "by taking an elevator up from
Beer, Cher, and Crime: ART IS MORE
 IMPORTANT
 THAN MATH
 8
 want something now And you re lucky tm
 quest. You
 are we playin, a fuckin game herepa Y
 fuckin years! This ts something youre go
 We're not asking
 CONNOLLY TALK
 we ever had." Connolly liked to say in a flourish at
 id, Comnolly's claims upon closer scrutiny
 and Flemmi were the unnamed informants
 has sidewalk moment with Lehr of the
 To induce cooperation an angry Fema the
 his pal Weinstein would he held hostage n
 S00,000 Doc and Mloe were given soe time
 I'll never see you again Doc said No wh
 stated the obvious Guess you re to
 two old men promised to get the money,and F
 a mmá to during sidewalk
 sh nsoch" regard, it wa.. shining moment
 of genuine
 evidence from the tapes later helped convice
 extortion and r
 gt Russ, and Carrozza of
 e h fe seering the FRI toward Vanessa's
 cher than Whitey Bulger
 e dough Vanessa's was listed in city records as being
 The next day, as investigaton
 Weinstein carried a white plastic shopping baly Smy
 Park Plaza Hotel. He handed the bagto and
 5250,000 in cash, the first instalment The e
 the Vanessa's storeroom and gloated as they splu
 shares of s40,000 Those assholes, this beer be
 dtcthe auent suburb of Belmont, the eatery
 Mercuno, a Mafia soldier and pandoned
 would become an FBl imformant.)
 ged
 lemmi begin telling Connolly about
 lthe Italian eatery Flemm, nor Bulger, was aten
 e de pending business was sorting out the
 Even without all of the dialogue, the Glhe odBuge's gang rollowing one meeting
 cials and federal prosecutors, particularly jenemish T
 Organized Crime Stnike Fonce were icesedThe
 rara was still ongoing, and they
 Vanessa's had gotten out But the reportens had
 bhue Mercunio was rendly" with him a hitey Buiger
 hbe ds when he was a messenger and lhaison betw
 eehTte plind
 wanted to nla Pemmt added that Mercurio was in charg
 The Hill and
 serting up the
 erwnen the groups to discuss changing the
 ans so that they could al rake in even n
 he w
 meeting a week l
 he once
 ongoung negon
 wdange the payodf odds on the ilegal nun...games and about
 In fact it turned out that Connolly wansed to ils debute
 or, as it was confidentially referred to. Opeaton
 developed a kind of stump speech in which hedestbedNa ·í_kby
 second in a "mlogy" of major Mafia bup theint bergh rite
 Street bug that the FBI w ould never hase gometnotfr
 ebteegal football betting cards during that fall's footbal
 old Connolly. "The Mafia intends to chop up the whole city
 powmble by controlling all independent bookmakers. He re
 ind etheMaha was on the march" into the suburbs and said that
 way to the secret session "by taking an elevator up from
England, Stephen, and Target: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens
England, Stephen, and Target: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
squidsticks:
King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...

England, Stephen, and Tumblr: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens
England, Stephen, and Tumblr: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
squidsticks:
King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...