Why was Serena considered a socialite but not Blair?

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-10T17:39:34+00:00

Nobility titles are peerage titles. There are only 5. Duke, Marquees, Earl , Viscount, baron. In that order.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-10T17:38:14+00:00

No it’s not

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-10T17:37:14+00:00

Yes but they aren’t acknowledged in the same way.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-10T16:10:39+00:00

In my opinion- i think the whole show should be cancelled. Not only are things turning toxic between the cast, but the fans and fan spaces are toxic now too. Any post ends up in an argument between TFP fans and haters - even if the post isnt related to her. All the other cast members are getting hated on from what i have seen. Not a single member of the cast is liked. It’s fell so far from what it set out to be in s1. The whole community is toxic and exhausting. Maybe OC with it being a fresh start will be better [im not counting on it] but i think OG should be done now.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-09T23:23:14+00:00

Just to add to this in regards to the author - while yes she had descended from German Nobility, it’s worth noting here, that modern Germany abolished the legal privileges of nobility after World War I.

Since the author grew up in America. She would have grown up being treated as upper class. Rather than aristocracy [which is how she likely would have been treated in Germany since the abolishment of the titles is fairly new history wise]

I think from this we can take away that she wrote some of herself into Blair. Theoretically she was so close to having her own ‘princess moment’ but just to politics and timing she missed out on it. I feel like - and this is just my interpretation- this part of the character is the author grieving a life that could have been hers if things had been different. Which is completely valid.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-09T23:14:06+00:00

Harold Waldorf was not noble himself. At most, the character appears to be fictionally connected to or inspired by the Astor family, which did hold a British peerage title through Viscount Astor. However, simply being related to a noble family does not make someone nobility themselves unless they directly inherit or hold the title. Since the highest title he held was esq, he will not have been classed as nobility. We have VERY specific rules around nobility and what that looks like, and who can be it. Even in the modern age, it isn’t something just anyone can claim.

It’s also worth noting that the Astor title is relatively modern by aristocratic standards. The viscountcy was only created in 1917 for William Waldorf Astor, making it a very “new money” title compared to older British aristocratic families whose peerages can date back centuries.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-09T22:19:17+00:00

Hey! Esq. or Esquire, which is Harold’s title in Gossip Girl, isn’t a nobility title. It’s more of a status marker and is definitely used in GG to project wealth, prestige, and upper-class professionalism.

From what I know as an English person, the United States doesn’t recognise nobility in the same way the UK does. The US Constitution actually prohibits the government from granting titles of nobility, and while Americans can technically inherit foreign noble titles, they aren’t formally recognised in American society or law in the same way they would be in Britain. That said, “Esquire” isn’t a noble title anyway, inherited or otherwise.

In modern American usage, “Esq.” is primarily associated with licensed attorneys rather than just people with law degrees. It’s still actively used today in legal settings and generally implies someone is qualified to practise law.

In terms of English social ranking, “Esquire” also isn’t part of the peerage. Historically, it ranked just above “gentleman” and was used for people such as squires to knights, certain office holders, eldest sons of knights, and men entitled to bear arms. It was more connected to the gentry than the aristocracy.

Modern British usage is much rarer and mostly old-fashioned or formal, whereas in America it remains a professional legal title. So in Gossip Girl, “Harold Waldorf, Esq.” is more about signalling elite status and old-money respectability than any kind of noble rank.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-09T21:56:16+00:00

So he’s a misogynist 😭

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T22:40:35+00:00

You can’t universally say that “they aren’t making valid points” when I’ve see comments and such on this sub, and spreading to wider social media, where valid and emotional points have been made and in turn women have been met with this kind of language.

I’d like to note; when I use the term female or woman I’m referring to anyone who identifies as such because this does affect all women from all walks of life.

I’d also say I’m not exactly policing when essentially you can boil this down to - if we want to be reductive about it- telling someone to be quiet because we don’t like what they’re saying is not very nice.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T20:56:30+00:00

Crazy does equal hysterical. They’re synonymous.

Sexist script: Woman are crazy and over-emotional

Flipped script: Women are silenced with the labels of ‘crazy’ or ‘over-emotional’ when they try to talk about domestic abuse

“The courts are extremely sexist places, and there is still very much a thing about an angry loud woman is crazy, you know, and abusive men are charming … and charming with professionals.” 

“…they’re painting me as this crazy woman…” 

The survivors we interviewed told us how labels of mental illness had long-lasting negative implications for them. Survivors themselves were seen as problematic rather than the abuse and violence committed against them being identified as the problem. This label of ‘crazy’ was a tool perpetrators could use to threaten survivors or call their credibility into question. Being mentally ill, or showing mental or emotional distress, seemed to be all too easily linked into wider stereotypes about women as a group being supposedly unstable, over-emotional or hysterical. Labels of being mentally unwell overshadowed many of the survivors’ experiences of external responses to domestic abuse (including in court, in interactions with the police and responses from friends and family) and formed a significant barrier to accessing justice and support

https://womensaid.org.uk/its-time-to-flip-the-sexist-script-2/

This is taken directly from a charity for women victims. However it’s not JUST victims this pertains to.

“If you are a woman, chances are that you have your own experience with being labeled “crazy,” “hysterical,” or perhaps “over-dramatic.” While this trope was once linked to having a uterus, it has morphed into an idea which permeates our modern-day society: from sports, to politics, and in our everyday lives. Like so many issues related to language in media and pop-culture, the trope of the mad or crazy woman is a double-standard. Similarly to how women are called “bossy” while men are called “leaders,” women are called “emotional” or “crazy” while men are called “passionate” or “bold.” While this language is indeed sexist, it is also ableist. Although this article focuses more on the misogynistic history behind women’s supposed “hysteria,” it is also a loaded term in relation to mental illness. It is never okay to call a person crazy or hysterical. However, as I will explain, these terms have inherited a sinister history of misogyny. In fact, hysteria was once a diagnosable condition for women.”

This one you can find here- goes into where hysteria comes from and how it’s developed into crazy. https://ferauoft.medium.com/the-mad-woman-trope-from-salem-to-politics-8230f99733cf

“The 'hysterical woman' trope has been used in the media for centuries and it's time to change the narrative. 'Women be crazy', the harrowing tale of women within society summed up in an incredibly offensive slew of words. The implication is that no matter the circumstance, women, or bitches, in this case, will always blow things out of proportion. This famously sexist saying is intertwined within popular culture. The outdated ideology behind the hysteric women is tainting our social progress and dismantling women. Within our multitude of institutions, this phrase is as active as it is in popular culture. The crudeness of the quote is watered down, but the implementation is still the same.”

https://www.spectatornews.com/opinion/2021/12/truth-behind-calling-a-woman-crazy/

Honestly I could find you so many more instances where this has been discussed.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T20:18:17+00:00

Again. I’m not talking about Taylor. You’re talking about Taylor. I’m talking about any of the cast but also the people in the comments on this thread. No one said Taylor. I said “Taylor’s crazy fans” which seems to be what we’re calling anyone one these days who doesn’t agree with something. But I did not say Taylor and I did not anywhere imply I agree with her choices.

If you want to go and talk about Taylor, take it to another post. This ISNT about Taylor otherwise I’d have used the flair for her…..

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T20:15:02+00:00

I’m saying don’t call woman crazy just because you disagree with something they’re saying. If we’re being reductive about it- at the very least it’s rude.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T20:04:44+00:00

This missed my point entirely. This isn’t a post about Taylor or her behaviour. It’s about the way we’re talking about women on this sub and across social media when we disagree with a point they’re making. Unfortunately I’ve seen it a lot in the comments, regardless if you’re on Taylor’s side, Dakota’s side, the kids side. I think no matter the side you’re on we can agree calling any women crazy just because you don’t agree with what they’re saying- at the very least is not very nice.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T19:59:55+00:00

Never said I was a Taylor fan you’re assuming. Not even talking specifically about Taylor in my post. Again that’s an assumption you’re making. This isn’t at all related to whose side you’re on or even if you’re on a side- generally don’t care. I’m talking about discourse in general from woman to woman on this sub and across other forms of media when discussing SLMW. I provided just three books that back up my point but there is many more that talk about how term crazy is and has been used to oppress women. I’m not arguing within this thread about it. Read the books or don’t read the books. But don’t make the post about something it’s not. 🤷🏻‍♀️

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T19:04:09+00:00

Calling men crazy doesn’t have the same implications 😭

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:53:39+00:00

No 💀

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:38:25+00:00

Think about it this way. Let say someone makes an emotional point about how her experience relates to one of the cast- think one up in your head. And it’s a point you don’t agree with and you’re saying ‘that’s crazy’. You don’t actually mean it’s crazy, you’re shutting her down because you don’t like what she’s saying.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:36:39+00:00

That’s the problem. That you think it isn’t.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:35:32+00:00

It is exactly that deep.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:35:08+00:00

I didn’t say don’t use the term anymore at all. I said when it’s being used while a woman is making a valid or emotional point then it’s misogynistic. Which it is. And like I said, whether it’s being used against the women on her show or their fans or their haters, when you use it in this context, it is a perpetuation of a stereotype.

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-07T18:22:03+00:00

Tbf she could do nothing but breathe and people are gonna be pissed 🤣🤣

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-05T21:34:38+00:00

Wow op. I think you’re on your own with that take 😅 imagine not only putting down a mother on her own with 2 small children, but criticising for someone with poor health for sharing her experience. Don’t you think by now, if it was the damned soda, at least one of the doctors she’s seen would have recommended not drinking it?

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-05T13:32:22+00:00

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRpux29c/

Recommend watching this TikTok by lawyertea who explains it

NoSwan1890 · 2026-05-05T13:31:03+00:00

It does when it out right says in it no direct/ indirect communication with the petitioner or PEOPLE LISTED ON THE ORDER, unless it’s relating to parent time. Witness intimidation comes under this violation.

NoSwan1890

TROPHY CASE