TV/Movies Megathread

[Duque de Bragança]

Now that is a movie you never watch twice 

Yep. Up there with Grave of the Fireflies.

Make it a movie marathon with Threads, for good measure.

[The Brain]

Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me, by Lewis. A modern take on Richard, with the advantage of the discovery of his remains. Author is a self-confessed Ricardian. Isn't obviously unreasonable (but of course I'm not an expert on the sources etc), even if I don't agree with every argument. I think it would have been helpful to discuss a bit more the possible scenarios for what happened to the princes in the Tower, just to clarify what the options are and how likely or unlikely the author thinks they are and why.

[crazy canuck]

Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me, by Lewis. A modern take on Richard, with the advantage of the discovery of his remains. Author is a self-confessed Ricardian. Isn't obviously unreasonable (but of course I'm not an expert on the sources etc), even if I don't agree with every argument. I think it would have been helpful to discuss a bit more the possible scenarios for what happened to the princes in the Tower, just to clarify what the options are and how likely or unlikely the author thinks they are and why.

I can hardly wait for the movie

[Malthus]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

[The Brain]

Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me, by Lewis. A modern take on Richard, with the advantage of the discovery of his remains. Author is a self-confessed Ricardian. Isn't obviously unreasonable (but of course I'm not an expert on the sources etc), even if I don't agree with every argument. I think it would have been helpful to discuss a bit more the possible scenarios for what happened to the princes in the Tower, just to clarify what the options are and how likely or unlikely the author thinks they are and why.

I can hardly wait for the movie

Good point. I'll put this in the correct thread.

[Valmy]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

There is a certain evil event horizon that generally rulers were not supposed to cross: you are not supposed to murder your own parents or children and, I guess, your nephews.

Killing off rebels or rival nobles? Good.

Doing this to your own son? Bad.



It does tend to lead to the collapse of your dynasty and political chaos so hence the taboo I suppose. Nero famously hunted down and killed any Julio-Claudians he could get his hands on and they ended rather badly for Rome and the Julio-Claudians (with the end of the dynasty and the Year of the Four Emporers) and he is not exactly considered an ideal model for monarchs.

[Malthus]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

There is a certain evil event horizon that generally rulers were not supposed to cross: you are not supposed to murder your own parents or children and, I guess, your nephews.

Killing off rebels or rival nobles? Good.

Doing this to your own son? Bad.



It does tend to lead to the collapse of your dynasty and political chaos so hence the taboo I suppose. Nero famously hunted down and killed any Julio-Claudians he could get his hands on and they ended rather badly for Rome and the Julio-Claudians (with the end of the dynasty and the Year of the Four Emporers) and he is not exactly considered an ideal model for monarchs.

The Tudors has no troubles executing people they were closely related to if they appeared threatening. For example, Lady Jane Grey, who was 16, and a first cousin, executed because she might be used as a figurehead monarch in the future as she had been in the past.

Of course, they tended to do that openly, rather than secretly ...

[Valmy]

Well that is just not true. Mary overthrew her as a usurper of course but she had no intention of executing her until a rebellion in her name made it a necessity. Even then she certainly had a problem doing it.

But a usurping first cousin and a sitting monarch, who is also your nephew, are different aren't they? Also Richard was supposed to be their guardian, Jane was a political and religious enemy full stop.

And yeah if they were going to execute them it did have to be done in a way that made it clear they had to, because there was a stigma.

[Malthus]

Well that is just not true. Mary overthrew her as a usurper of course but she had no intention of executing her until a rebellion in her name made it a necessity. Even then she certainly had a problem doing it.

But a usurping first cousin and a sitting monarch, who is also your nephew, are different aren't they? Also Richard was supposed to be their guardian, Jane was a political and religious enemy full stop.

And yeah if they were going to execute them it did have to be done in a way that made it clear they had to, because there was a stigma.

How is that "just not true"? Because Mary thought it was necessary? Everyone who kills a potential rival thinks it is necessary, or they wouldn't do it! 😄

No-one seriously thought Lady Jane was going to personally lead a rebellion. The worry was that others would use her as a figurehead, to replace the existing monarch. The exact same concern that every dynast has when getting rid of someone who may be in line.

Nor is having a "trial" and "execution" in this era much different from simply killing them. The "trials" had predetermined verdicts.

Henry VII was the guy who defeated Richard for being a kid killer, so surely he would never, say, throw an inconvenient 10 year old into a dungeon and then execute him, would he?

Oh right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick

[Valmy]

How is that "just not true"? Because Mary thought it was necessary? Everyone who kills a potential rival thinks it is necessary, or they wouldn't do it! 😄

A potential rival /= a usurper. I mean Jane had Mary on the run and in fear for her life for a few days. But, again, she didn't want to do it. But, at the end of the day, you cannot just send hundreds of your own people to die to keep one person, an enemy at that, alive.

Henry VII was the guy who defeated Richard for being a kid killer, so surely he would never, say, throw an inconvenient 10 year old into a dungeon and then execute him, would he?

Again not a parent, child, or other close relative of Henry. Also he was kept in prison but not executed until several years later when he became involved with plots (and possible...international pressure). He was in his 20s at the time so not exactly the killing of a kid.

I clearly pointed out that executing rivals and rebels was common but there was this thing where you were not supposed to execute your parents or children or other very close family members was some kind of evil event horizon. Bringing up rebels and rivals as people who were executed doesn't disprove anything I said but rather demonstrate it.

[Valmy]

I mean one would think that uncles killing their nieces and nephews or brothers taking out their older brothers would be a very common occurance in this era but for whatever reason it wasn't. I mean it isn't like it never happened but it was frowned upon in a way that arbitrarily executing the Duke of Buckingham wasn't.

[Eddie Teach]

That's not true, Malthus. Some execute for the sheer joy of it.

[Malthus]

How is that "just not true"? Because Mary thought it was necessary? Everyone who kills a potential rival thinks it is necessary, or they wouldn't do it! 😄

A potential rival /= a usurper. I mean Jane had Mary on the run and in fear for her life for a few days. But, again, she didn't want to do it. But, at the end of the day, you cannot just send hundreds of your own people to die to keep one person, an enemy at that, alive.

Henry VII was the guy who defeated Richard for being a kid killer, so surely he would never, say, throw an inconvenient 10 year old into a dungeon and then execute him, would he?

Again not a parent, child, or other close relative of Henry. Also he was kept in prison but not executed until several years later when he became involved with plots (and possible...international pressure). He was in his 20s at the time so not exactly the killing of a kid.

I clearly pointed out that executing rivals and rebels was common but there was this thing where you were not supposed to execute your parents or children or other very close family members was some kind of evil event horizon. Bringing up rebels and rivals as people who were executed doesn't disprove anything I said but rather demonstrate it.

The kids in the Tower were close relations ... but so was Lady Jane. True they were very young ... but so was Edward Plantagenet when he disappeared into the Tower.

Jane wasn't killed for usurpation. She survived that. Jane was killed because another rebellion made it appear others were going to use her as a figurehead - so she was too dangerous to allow to live.

Obviously, these monarchs were reluctant to murder kids or close relatives, or close relatives who were kids ... but they would do it if they believed it was necessary to keep the throne, the Tudors no less than Richard III. Lady Jane was young (16), female, and a close relation ... but none of that saved her.

[Malthus]

I mean one would think that uncles killing their nieces and nephews or brothers taking out their older brothers would be a very common occurance in this era but for whatever reason it wasn't. I mean it isn't like it never happened but it was frowned upon in a way that arbitrarily executing the Duke of Buckingham wasn't.

The Duke of Clarence was the bro of the dad of the murdered nephews ... what happened to him?

Oh yeah, he was executed (privately) for attempting to usurp his brother.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

Seems that, in this family, murder of close relations, judicial or otherwise, did indeed happen with distressing frequency!

Edit: two of his kids were also executed by the Tudors at various times ...

[Valmy]

Ok that is one example you have provided. And yeah it took Clarence many years of incredible idiotic incompetence of needlessly plotting but he did manage to be executed by his own brother. Point Malthus. However, it is still fundamentally different than murdering a sitting king, who was a child, and you were supposed to be caring for and your nephew with some adult who has spent decades plotting against you.

But still. That is one.

Seems that, in this family, murder of close relations, judicial or otherwise, did indeed happen with distressing frequency!

The distressing frequency being once I suppose. Once is one time too many.

Edit: two of his kids were also executed by the Tudors at various times ...

Oh come now we already talked about one of them.