#richard stokes

[80smovies]

[gregor-samsung]

The Black Power Mixtape 1967–1975 (Göran Olsson, 2011)

[toonytoodles]

[alien-own]

I really liked this character and I'm sorry that their friendship line ended like this 💔

[spearxwind]

AUGH @ people sending asks to talk abt HR the problem is I dont know WHAT to talk about since ive already gone off about the broad strokes ad nauseum i would have to talk about characters and themes and random very specific worldbuilding details like did you know the underground supermaze that gives hollowridge its name is actually inhabited by all kinds of creatures and machines that were engineered to keep it safe and have evolved out of control in the new situation and now act more like the immune system of a massive beast? (There are regular animals too but the labs and factories are protected by specific machines)

Since they are descended from security systems they will attack anything and everything foreign that enters UNLESS they can be confirmed as "employees" meaning if you have some sort of old world identification (like an ID card) you MIGHT stand a chance at getting in unscathed. The other problem is that these IDs also come with DNA and face recognition so unless the system is very primitive or very damaged only descendants of old registered employees can """"safely"""" enter.

[thekenobee]

Tigers in Oxford, tigers in Scotland..

[jt1674]

[blackboar]

Sorry if it's a dumb question. But if people say Lambert or Perkin were the Princes, why did they wait so long to come back?

Richard stole their birthright slurred them their mother and sisters as a whore and bastards. So why the hell did they never appear in his reign and get an army? Yeah it's a short time and they were young but no one's asking them to fight. Plenty of men would've helped.

Like if everyone thought they were dead, Henry's sorta avenging them by killing Richard and marrying Elizabeth. He's the good guy! So why wait.

The best explanation I have is Richard was holding them, and would've kept them in prison until they died, but when Bosworth happened someone let them out.

I mean, if they lived, wouldn't taking two boys hostage, killing protective male family, and never letting them see their mother again, and never have any life at all, be pretty shitty behavior as it is?

So it's kind of a paradox. If Richard didn't kill them, even if they weren't Perkin or Lambert, he was expecting to leave them in jail forever. So he ruined their lives and was cruel for no reason. If he was ready to hurt two children, he sounds like the type of guy who would finish the job and kill them.

So if I follow the whole "they survived" theory through, Richard ends up sounding guilty anyway.

Well, do you know why Lambert Simmel's revolt never happened during Richard III's reign?

Because the rebellion was made by Ricardians. It's Richard III's sister funding mercenaries led by Richard III's former Lieutenant of Ireland/nephew and his former best friend, landing on Richard III's stronghold and attracting Richard III's former supporters (the Harringtons, Broughtons, Scropes).

Lambert Simmel being Edward V. Makes. No. Damn. Sense.

As for Perkin Warbeck, the fact that he waited years speaks volumes on his authenticity. He was aware that this was an issue, hence his justifications about his brother Edward V being killed by people whom he does not name the sponsor before being put in custody by said killers who seemingly have no trouble killing a 13-year-old but think it's too immoral to kill a 10-year-old. Then they free him after a bunch of years in Flanders.

Two options: either they work for Richard III, in which case they should have no trouble freeing him after he gets killed. Either they work for the Tudors/Tudor-linked, in which case he wouldn't ever be free. What convince me that Perkin Warbeck isn't Richard of Shrewsbury is his own weird version of events, not whatever his opponents said.

And indeed, it's to vindicate Richard III but less as an innocent man than a victim of his time. In the long run, they can't canonize him, considering many of his past deeds. But what they wanna do is pin the portrayal of someone unfairly treated by his contemporaries and posterity. Using a famous mystery in which one can muddy the waters enough to instigate doubts is great for them because then, they can avoid talking about his career as a duke, his actions as a general or his very real ambitions and aspirations. I do not get their hyperfixation on Richard III & morality. I personally outgrew it when I was 16 years old. Richard III doesn't interest me for that. Their picture of a martyred (?), progressive (??), proto-socialist (???) Duke of Gloucester is so strange it's a bit fascinating.

[mar-sibilina]

[missgreengirl]

The crow and the fox

Master Crow, perched on an oak, Was holding a cheese in his beak. Master Fox, lured by the scent, Spoke more or less like this: ‘Good day, my dear Sir Crow, How smart you are! How debonair you are! In truth, if your song Be as fine as your plumage, You are the phoenix of these woods.’ At this, the crow grew wild with glee; And to display his minstrelsy, He opens a big beak and drops his booty. The fox snaps it up, saying: ‘My dear sir, Learn that every flatterer Depends on an audience to live at ease. This lesson is doubtless cheap at a cheese.’ The crow, shamefaced and in troubled state, Vowed to be tricked no more – a little late.

[randomrichards]

SHIRLEY (2024):

Chisholm’s bold campaign

First black woman candidate

Led on her own terms

[80smovies]

[gregor-samsung]

The Black Power Mixtape 1967–1975 (Göran Olsson, 2011)

[luvmesumus]

[alien-own]

"... you were an artist, friend"

[tirednotflirting]

nah why am i actually upset about this eternals news