I am currently doing an impression of a children’s TV presenter from the 60s or 70s with a long sleeved red skivvy and my teal-black-purple tunic over the top.
Yes! I’ve emerged from the fuzzy dressing gown!
My fibro really get very grumpy when I wear anything wool or acrylic next to my skin. Silly me totally forgot I have a few super soft layers not just my merino ones. I’ll figure some way to use them again. Even more research is pointing to a provable immune involvement that I really hope leads to treatment to prevent symptoms not mask them. Though I’m grateful for that.
My Anne of Cleves research is developing well. It still holds up as novel even as several books and articles use some of the lesser known sources. It’s handy as I can quote the sources and have a bit of a guide as to how they have been used, and include these books in my bibliography.
I’ve got hold of some lovely big art books and with no real reason have once again had a handful of useful images out of hundreds. This is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. When a book about different audiences for books entirely ignores the vast libraries of manuscripts owned by women within those audiences. Students? Not university but taught by tutors. Aristocrats? Well nobility mostly but same deal. Monks? Nuns.
https://booksofduchesses.com/teach is a great place to get and idea of just how much there is, though I think a bit limited by different digitisation efforts in different countries, which has been my issue. I suspect an absence of evidence too, not not evidence of absence as has been suggested. When you have the incredible BNF digitisation project then your manuscripts skew French.
So I’m almost ready to move my digital library into the folders of the women who owned them.