[ SECRET POST #5407 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5407 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #774.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Well, Shakespeare did have something to do with that one

[sparklywalls]

Would that make Shakespeare the anti-fandom originator? I guess he was writing pro-Tudor which means you're anti-Richard by default, but in a way Henry Tudor himself started that by backdating his reign to the day before the battle.

Seriously though, I don't love the "Richard was a complete monster" attitude at all but some of the stuff on the pro side is a bit too...not especially historical either for my liking.

[(Anonymous)]

I enjoy reading historical fiction featuring people that really exhisted and it's almost impossible to find a nuanced take. Richard is either evil incarnate or (more often actually now that I think about it) a saint who did nothing wrong ever (in which case Henry Tudor is a terrible person ofc.)
Someone please write me ONE good book (series) in which both of these men are interesting, flawed people but with good traits. Bonus points if it has a nice Henry VII/Elizabeth of York relationship.

[sparklywalls]

You're talking my language anon. The unsolved mystery element surrounding Richard is what got me interested in that era, but I get annoyed when any work of fiction involving him concentrates completely on that and ignores everything else to do with him, good and bad.

I am also not here for when the only way to make Richard look good is to turn Henry into a monster instead. Like I get it, fiction has to exaggerate a bit to be entertaining but it's just getting boring that only one of them can be an angel meaning that the other is automatically a demon. Didn't The White Princess basically imply Henry abused Elizabeth for example? When their marriage was fairly happy (as happy as a politically convenient marriage can be) from the sources iirc?

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like Sharon Kay Penman comes closest, but her Sunne in Splendour was fairly pro-Richard. Not to a crazy extent, I don't think? But sympathetic.

I admit, I dislike Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time because IMO, it is pro-Richard to the point of irrationality. But I'm going off dim memories here, because I only read it once and disliked it so much I refused to reread it.

Personally, I don't think Richard III was satan incarnate. But I don't think he was a saint, and I do think he was ultimately responsible for the deaths of his nephews.

[(Anonymous)]

My mom loaned me her copy of The Daughter of Time. I haven't finished reading it, but I've been enjoying it BECAUSE it's so over the top.

[(Anonymous)]

Fucking Shakespeare. The guy was a hack. Let me tell you about the real Macbeth one day. The version Shakespeare came up with is just like the complete opposite of the real one. Shakespeare is the royal version of Brannon Braga.

[(Anonymous)]

Well? Out with it, I must know about the real Macbeth!

(unless this is just pure anti-Shakespeare blustering hullabaloo for a goof, and there is no real Macbeth)

[(Anonymous)]

No, he existed and was pretty positive figure overall. He was one of the early Kings of Scotland from 1040–1057, one of the unifying ones who may have done as much as Kenneth MacAlpin himself in bringing together the various sub-kingdoms of Alba, Strathclyde, and Dal Riata to make a unified Scotland, and his rule predated even the Saxon rule in England. Contemporary sources say he was called "The Generous King of Good Fortune" and the "he gave money to the poor as if it were seed".

On the downside, he also hosted a lot of Normans from France as guests and refugees which contributed to the start of Feudalism in Southern Scotland (although it was never quite as tyrannical as it was in England, it was the English-Normans continually trying to impose their stricter version of feudalism on Scotland that contributed so much to the ill feeling between the two countries).