Ignorethisrandom - Untitled

March 1

In 1562, 23 Huguenots were killed in the Massacre of Vassy, which kicked off the French Wars of Religion.  Between two and four million people got to find out if their particular beliefs were correct before the dust settled 36 years later.  That represented between 12.5 to 25 percent of the entire population of France at the time.  To put that in perspective with the current population of the US, a similar war would result in between 40 and 80 million deaths.

So keep this sort of thing in mind when you hear about people wanting to establish national religions anywhere.  That shit never ends well.

It’s like a bunch of annoying teenage girls are telling us this story... Damn you Reign - lazy historical writing strikes again!

What level of Evul™ TV Henry VIIIs are you on a scale of Damian Lewis getting drunk and talking about his sex life in Wolf Hall to Mark Stanley growling “YOU PROMISED ME SUNNNSSSS” like an actual demon in the new Anne Boleyn trailer

After watching House of the Dragon, I’m not sure I’d want ANY of these characters on the throne. 

Rhaenerya - I know we’re supposed to sympathize with her, but she keeps making terrible choices. 

Aegon II - Nope. Just nope.

Daemon - He’s all about getting power, not about using it. Clearly not trustworthy. (Is he going to steal someone’s dragon? Is that why he sang to one of the dragons in the finale?) 

Alicent & Otto - If these two worked as a team to support a better claimant than Aegon (ugh) I’d like them more, but they chose Aegon...clearly not a smart move. 

Ideas for Season 2

What if next season the writers kept up the unreliable narrator device? 

There could be an episode next season centering on the Massacre at Vassy - the start of the many wars of religion - where Louis de Bourbon (Prince of Conde) tells Ramira HIS side of the story. In his version he is the only one fighting for Protestants to have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. This would make for a more rounded character and an interesting look at how Louis sees himself. With his narration he becomes a freedom fighter for the oppressed. Protestants can’t teach/study at Universities, hold certain jobs, worship in public in many cities/provinces. He sees himself as the Huguenots’ savior in many ways–their version of Martin Luther King Jr. He can even physically look thinner and more dignified instead of fulfilling the short/fat one dynamic he has with Antoine when Catherine is narrating. 

Since other shows set in this time period do not have the unreliable narrator device, this show should use it to their advantage. This story is filled with people manipulating each other–why not manipulate the audience while you’re at it? 

Plus it gives Ramira some internal conflict: who does she believe? Maybe Catherine could try to make her into one of her Flying Squadron (spy/seductresses) but Ramira doesn’t like this, so hearing Louis’s side of the story could help bring tension between her and Catherine, giving Ramira something to do next season since historically she never existed and could easily be overshadowed by the show’s historical figures and events. 

hi, sorry to be a bother, but i was wondering if u knew any alternatives to Philippa Gregory?? I really want to get into Tudor history and I love historical fiction but I've heard so much criticism of her work xx

Unfortunately a lot of period books are going to be steeped in a certain level of creative license which sacrifices historical details to the ideal or romanticised effect. Most major Tudor writers – Weir, Plaidy, Gregory - are guilty of this. Personally I can look past this and enjoy the content for its historical setting and loose interpretation, but if that is a deal breaker for you there are a slim number of authors who will likely appeal to you. If you are disinterested in Gregory, I would recommend Alison Weir and Jean Plaidy. Their novels are chock full in historical references and are of a similar style to Gregory.  As I understand it their’s are more credible, the exception being Weir tends to take a biased standpoint, and Plaidy is more of a story-writer than she is a historian.

You’ve probably already heard of Hillary Mantel’s Wolf Hall series. I read its entirety and enjoyed it, but there are errors strewn through it. On the opposite end, Adrienne Dillard’s works tend to be more true to history and from what I’ve gathered the author herself is an all-around good person. I highly enjoyed The Raven’s Widow as opposed to Gregory’s interpretation to Jane Boleyn.  Olivia Longueville is also a recommended author. Sharon Kay Penman, Ken Follett, Katharine Longshore, Diane Haeger, and Margaret George all have interesting and well-researched reads. I loved the Autobiography of Henry VIII by George. It reads fantastically.

I hope this helps! Enjoy your summer reading. 

‘Who has a better story than bran the broken?’ is blatant meera and jojen reed erasure (osha and hodor as well). Osha busted them out of winterfell, jojen showed up with his green dreams to guide them to the three eyed raven, and meera dragged his ass home after. The only thing bran managed to do is touch the night king and get a bunch of people killed (including the last living members of an entire species). Bran in general has very little agency in his own story. Jaime throws him out the window, robb leaves him in charge, theon takes the castle, the three eyed raven decides to train him. Even when he finally seems like he might actually do something in the battle with the dead, he just doesn’t.

I saw the point made that if the idea had been that the person with the most stories, that knows the most history, should be king, then this might work a little better. A 'those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it’ type thing. But as it stands, it’s such a ridiculously unsupported choice.

I can’t be the only person that likes the new BBC/PBS Les Miserables adaptation, can I? 

I once saw a parent take their 7-10 year old child to see Prometheus. Needless to say, the child was traumatized by the alien birth scene. 

Also, I can’t help but laugh at the parents who let their 10-year-olds watch Deadpool and then complain about the language, violence, and sexual content in a film that is clearly rated R. 

why the fuck would you bring young children to an 11 pm screening of “Joker.” There is absolutely nothing in that movie for children, what are you doing. It’s almost midnight and this movie is rated “R”

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t go to late night screenings of R rated movies with the expectation that there will be children in the theater with me. 

At least once the children actually started getting upset she left, but jeez, maybe make sure a movie is appropriate for children before you buy tickets.