[ SECRET POST #4218 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4218 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Margot Robbie as Queen Elizabeth I and Saoirse Ronan as Mary Queen of Scots in Mary Queen of Scots (2018)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Little Richard]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Jane Austen]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Joss Whedon, The Nevers]


__________________________________________________



06.
[God Eater 2]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Anthony Bourdain, Asia Argento]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #603.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sparklywalls]

Yup the very same! I tried reading some of the books because my mum has them, we're both interested in Richard III. I just couldn't keep going. I'm all for trying to be a little kinder to people who have traditionally been cast as the villains of history but her Richard III stanning got a bit much even for me.

I'm not sure the forest choice for the TV show was her though. Probably some producer or director thought it'd look good or atmospheric on screen but it ended up being ridiculous.

[(Anonymous)]

I have an interest in Richard III too, but honestly, most of the historical novels that try to "correct" the bad perception of him usually goes too far the other way. I don't think he was an evil hunchback, but I don't think he was an innocent snowflake, either.

[sparklywalls]

Exactly the problem I have. He was a medieval king, of course he's not going to be an angel even if you do believe he didn't order his nephew's deaths (but honestly he *is* the most likely candidate anyway.)

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, the pro-Richard arguments are really fascinating to me just because they're *so* flimsy and absurd

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Haha, indeed. I think they're based more on feelings and some odd belief in Richard being this... moral paragon of some sort? I don't see much historical basis for that, tbh.

[(Anonymous)]

This. At best - at BEST, mind you - I might be convinced that he didn't give the orders directly, but even that's a bit of a reach. People want to blame Buckingham but even that seems like a reach to me. Ricardians seem so weirdly desperate to find a scapegoat besides admitting that maybe Richard was, like many rulers of his time, not above doing the occasional really awful thing in order to secure the throne.