|From: terrilee62 (Original Message)||Sent: 5/11/2005 8:27 AM|
OK, this is the kind of thing that makes me crazy! Reading an article about George Lucas and the new Star Wars movie coming out next week, it begins like this:
Lucas Glad to Leave Star Wars Behind
May 10, 12:28 PM EST
The Associated Press
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. -- A wilted monolith of establishment politics. An entrenched ruling class fearful of change. And one man who stealthily rebels from within, turning the system on its head and bending it to his will.
George Lucas' story is the benign reverse image of the palace coup engineered by the foul emperor of his "Star Wars" epic.
The emperor perverted a tired republic into a fascist state bearing the imprint of his boot heel, standard "Richard III" stuff for which history buff Lucas had many role models to study from ancient to modern times.
OK, so what is that supposed to mean? England became a fascist state? Richard III, the evil emperor (sure, I can hear him imploring Buckingham to 'come to the dark side') and what's with the 'imprint of his boot heel' stuff? Poor writing, pitiful knowledge of history.....grrrr
Ohhhh too coincedental....yesterday I was fuming myself over at a begats site & left a message in the guestbook there:
If you can't access it let me know & I will copy & paste the text in here....I was spitting when lo & behold, in the list of kings, this kiwi has Richard down as RICHARD CROOKBACK!!!! What, does he read More for a bedtime story every night?
Then, is his lil bio, he states that Richard was rebelled against because of the "hatred" the people of England had of him for the murder of the Princes in the Tower....AND he says his claim to the throne was "spurious"!
Ohhhhh I was spittin TACKS!!!
We oughta email AP & complain about the stupidity their wrtiters display....& if Lucas is such a "history buff", he oughta be objecting to that sentence, too! He prolly plays with planes & pretends he's the Red Baron & thinks that qualifies him as a history buff LOL
Way to go Amber - you had me cheering with your spirited defence of our man Dickon! I had to copy & paste your list of other monarch's possible nicknames:
I don't see you labeling any other royal in this fashion; there's no Charles I the Big Stupidhead LOL for example, no Crazy Henry VI, no Bluebeard Henry VIII, not even a Bloody Mary to be seen here. You're propagating a myth.
Gotta love Charles I the Big Stupidhead!
BTW, we recently watched "The Goodbye Girl" for the first time in years, and I had forgotten that there was a subplot about Richard Dreyfuss' character being an actor who played R3 in high heels, with a lisp, extensive eye makeup and the humpback! My family all looked at me, waiting for the explosion...they've heard it a few times before, lol!
Wonder what other pithy nicknames we could come up with!
|From: MarkGB5||Sent: 5/12/2005 3:44 PM|
There's a two hour drama on British TV tonight (Channel 4) entitled "The Princes in the Tower".
P.S. Richard undoubtedly did it.
|From: judymar||Sent: 5/13/2005 6:41 PM|
Shakespeare did it again! I was scanning through my book of 'Who's Who in British History' and happened upon George, Duke of Clarence, and got a big surprise as everything that I have ever read about him always told of him 'drowning in a butt of malmsey wine'. What a shock to see that also came from Shakespeare's wonderful imagination as the bit in the book says he was executed in the Tower on Feb.18, 1478.....Judy
|From: MarkGB5||Sent: 5/14/2005 4:22 AM|
The exact nature of Clarence's execution is unknown. It certainly was not a public affair as they usually were and it's possible that he was drowned as a cruel "joke".
I've read that Cicely Neville begged Edward to at least allow Clarence to select his own method of execution....but nobody seems to know exactly what that was.
Richard III does get a lot of bad press, doesn't he? He was a man of his times. If he did kill his nephews, is this any worse than John's involvement in the death of Arthur Plantagenet or any other number of other dynastic murders in the history of Europe?
As for the fascist state Richard III created, that would have been really hard to do since "fascisim" was not evolved until the twentieth century. His state and rule was comparable to many other monarchs who have a good historical reputation.
Now see, I have been saying that for years....I said it over HERE LOL....& I must say LG pegging Arthur as a "right little snot" was priceless....but nobody seems to care about John disposing of HIS nephew & he really did it. Plus Richard was a GOOD king which John definitely was NOT.