[ SECRET POST #6183 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6183 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Caligula, 1979]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.




























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #884.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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

[meadowphoenix]

i quibble with that "most historians don't find her reputable" like a lot of them don't all have pet theories they're doing the most about, but i think we can agree that more scholarly historians feel a way about tv historians. either way, it's not that big a hop from what langley's out here positing and gregory.

[(Anonymous)]

Langley's thing with Richard III goes well beyond a pet theory, that's why reputable historians look askance at her.

[meadowphoenix]

ooh, do you know of anything written criticism? i love academically sourced takedowns.

[(Anonymous)]

No, though I did see a video where David Starkey addresses some of the more recent craziness, i.e. the idea that the princes in the tower escaped and lived, therefore Richard III was innocent, etc.

But honestly, most of them just side-eye. Langley isn't a proper historian, she's Richard III Society and they have a set agenda when it comes to historical stuff. They are only interested in things that prove RIII was innocent of the murder of his nephews.

[meadowphoenix]

History Calling (youtuber) also did a video on it I liked. honestly, it wouldn't stop anyone even if they did proved to be the princes in the tower, but I would sort like the crown to dna test those bones they found.

[(Anonymous)]

Ha! I see we saw the same video. Agreed re: DNA testing. It wouldn't really dampen the spirits of the R3 society for long, because they're...well, a little delusional. Some of this stuff sounds more like Dan Brown conspiracy theory stuff than actual historical theorizing.

[meadowphoenix]

yeah, it doesn't surprise me that they're focusing on the escape theory. you can say richard didn't give the order all you want, if they're dead and no one said anything that's tacit approval and a cover-up to boot, like? but i agree once you've decided to have a membership process regarding it, it's beyond the history.

[(Anonymous)]

David Starkey video addressing one of Langley's previous claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFOMWkYQWsA&t=1397s


Another historian addressing the Langley documentary where she claims the princes escaped, etc.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ5FaYFnS2E

[meadowphoenix]

haha, I just mentioned the history calling one! thank you for the David Starkey link!