[ SECRET POST #2577 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2577 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane, from the soap opera Passions]


__________________________________________________



03.
[BBC Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Nobunaga the Fool]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia from Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Quick and the Dead]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Nathan Fillion]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Warehouse 13]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #368.
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)]

Dude, yes there is. There are Holmes Scholars who have written articles about it.

[fenm]

What story is this in? In the canon as written by Doyle, not something written by other people.

[(Anonymous)]

I'll have to look it up when I get home, but I believe the child in question is being held by Watson's wife. It's a quick mention but there is speculation that it's Watson's son - and that lack of mention of the child later is because well kids died young a lot in those days.

[(Anonymous)]

No there isn't. Holmes scholars have written essays about how Nero Wolfe is Holmes ans Irene's son and about how Watson was actually a woman. IT'S ALL JUST IN FUN. It's a fun pasttime that has little to do with canon. Look up "the Great Game" (not the bbc episode) for an explanation.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it really is very silly.

Wolfe is clearly Mycroft's son, not Sherlock's.

[fenm]

... OMG, that works.

/does everyone just forget Irene married her true love, and probably never even gave Holmes a second thought once she sailed off with her hubby? Hell, she was probably more important to Holmes than he ever was to her.

[(Anonymous)]

does everyone just forget Irene married her true love, and probably never even gave Holmes a second thought once she sailed off with her hubby?

Pretty much, yeah. Same as everyone forgets that she was never actually involved in any criminal activity.

[fenm]

Yep. Of course, that's probably because, along with making her a love interest for Holmes to at least some degree, many adaptation--and certainly some recent, well-known ones--HAVE made her a criminal.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, to be fair, she was blackmailing the king. Which I'm not sure is actually illegal, and it was only to protect herself rather than to hurt him, but is still not exactly level play.

However, an outright criminal, no she was not.

[(Anonymous)]

As I recall, she was not, in fact, blackmailing the king (which would be illegal, yes). She just owned some letters and a photograph that she could blackmail him with.

[fenm]

Well, to be fair, she was blackmailing the king.

Was she? She has a picture of herself with the King, period (once that he took willingly; she didn't have someone hiding in the bushes or anything). He claims she intends to give to the family of the woman he's going to marry. We hear this from HIM, not HER. In fact, nowhere in the story does she ever make any threat towards him herself. What we do know--since he says so--is that the King has had his men break into her house and mess with her luggage in various attempts to get the picture back. So, the only criminal activity we actually have any evidence for is from the King.

Uh, not talking about that? At all?

[(Anonymous)]

I am not talking about that? At all? It's a very quick mention of a child and the speculation is also that the child probably died and that's why it's not mentioned again (or that ACD forgot).

[(Anonymous)]

Articles written by Holmes scholars aren't canon. If there's a boy implied to be Watson and Mary's son in the stories themselves, then which story is it?

[(Anonymous)]

You are being an idiot on purpose. And I will have to look up the exact story when I get home. It's like a one sentence mention. Seriously, I did not expect this to become a thing.

[(Anonymous)]

There's no mention.

[(Anonymous)]

DA- Yeah, this really isn't funny anymore. Cut it out.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, you go and do that. Please be sure to come back and tell us which story it's in, maybe in tomorrow's General Comments.

[(Anonymous)]

P.S. Asking for a citation for a claim isn't idiotic, that's how reality works. People aren't obliged to believe everything you say, especially when it strikes them as less than credible. On the other hand, someone who makes rather outrageous claims and then throws a tantrum when people ask them for evidence is definitely "being an idiot on purpose".

[(Anonymous)]

*Dude* you are wrong. Plain and simple. It's fanon, not canon.