sophie, 24, australia. just a place for me to be unwell about historical interests of mine
Last active 2 hours ago
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Text
okay yeah id call that episode a win
fairfax new model army ad
pym mention
ship tax mention
RICHARD
#horrible histories#chaotic civil war#i set my expectations a bit lower than i originally had and that was a good idea. no parliamentarians other than cromwell/pym/fairfax#overall it was good and cute and pretty funny#theyve now had three different actors play charles ii since the series revival LMAO but i think tom does a good job#hes tall for starters!#and that song was fun at the end! im just so happy they finally mentioned richard cromwell. after all these years#and that he was ousted by the army
1 note
路
View note
Photo
Horrible Histories - Grisly Great Fire of London (2016)
Charles II鈥檚 court celebrates the end of 1665 and the Great Plague of London.
103 notes
路
View notes
Text
i think one of my new favourite examples of wars of the three kingdoms-adjacent bullshit is the naming and renaming of ships. there are three main examples of this:
the commonwealth launches the ship marston moor in 1654. nice, cool name, makes sense - that was a very providential win for the parliamentarians. when the restoration happens the ship is renamed hms york. also fine and cool, but a little weird since the siege of york happened immediately before the battle of marston moor and was also a loss for the royalists. but that's gotta be a coincidence. anyway
the commonwealth also launches a very nice ship called naseby in 1655, similarly named after a decisive parliamentarian victory in the first english civil war. this is the ship they send to collect charles ii from the netherlands in 1660, so naturally they wanted to rename it, and it's thought that both the king and his brother called it royal charles. a bit boring imo
by far the best one has to be sovereign of the seas, which is a really cool name, but perhaps a little long because it's reduced to just sovereign after charles i's execution (since things over than monarchs e.g, parliament can also be sovereign ig?). after the restoration, rather than changing it back, they add a 'royal' at the front so now it's just royal sovereign. oh the wasted potential
1 note
路
View note
Text
i am being so so normal rn*
*thinking about the way both cat and marwood are the children of fifth monarchists. the way that both end up tied to and having to care for older men whose minds are worn down by both age and time spent in prison. the way those same men become more extreme and show more hateful views towards women as time passes. the way both cat and elizabeth cromwell have absentee fathers who missed most of their adolescence and fled the country for entirely different reasons. the way neither of them found the place or trust to find what they had in common because they were too occupied keeping secrets and trying to protect themselves and their loved ones. the way that the recent wars and the religious/political divide they created has continued to linger and affects so many elements of so many people's lives
#marwood & lovett series#andrew taylor#the last protector has me INSANE#it feels so so different to the previous three books in tone and im not on board with all the decisions#e.g. hakesby's changes in temperament feel quite abrupt overall#but man just. its so frustrating. all that effort for those pearls and it's just WASTED#but i love how all the characters are acting in a way that makes sense for them even if you disagree with it. like cat is quite judgmental#and unforgiving#elizabeth is sly and is in part concealing her true feelings from cat in her eagerness to get the pearls and get her father#out of the country#and her frustration with her father's inability to provide#i am a little sus about the characterisation of richard tbh#like i think in the context that is being betrayed during his protectorship by his own uncle and brother in law (!!)#and i mean! there's even a line near the start about how richard is reluctant to trust people#and then suddenly he's completely in thrall of the duke. idk i just dont think he was that dumb or naive#but whatever. its fiction yknow.#i understand all of cat's feelings and anxieties but i feel rly sorry for the cromwells here. they basically are cursed#none of those accusations marwood made toward them at the end had any weight at all (especially since they were hushing up hakesby's death#and im pretty sure those pearls rightfully DID belong to the cromwells)#so it seemed more like a ploy to scare him into leaving and avoiding further trouble. which is fair#hakesby's death was also really sad : ( but he was so shitty to cat in this book#i have so much to say and no one to say this to. agony
1 note
路
View note
Text
inventing grindr for pikemen and footsoldiers in my inventor's lair
4K notes
路
View notes
Text

Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale (1872-1945, British) ~ The Book of Old English Songs and Ballads - 08 : "Pride and Ambition here Only in far-fetch metaphors appear", 1915
167 notes
路
View notes
Text
of course the wallingford house party wasn't nearly as fun as it sounds 馃様
1 note
路
View note
Text
I just fondled a cannon ball from the English civil war
It confirmed to me that we should go back to cannon balls in the upcoming revolution
41 notes
路
View notes
Note
love your icon :-)..! Meek Knight
aaaa thank you!!! 馃槶 it's one of my favourite woodcuts/illustrations from the period, and of course richard is a big fave
0 notes
Text
Building nations is not the glorious affair one might suppose. It is short nights and fools asking questions.
To Kill a King (2003), dir. Mike Barker.
17 notes
路
View notes
Text
I find I cannot kill you, but one day soon a man who loves you less will, and I will raise his gun to stop you. And he'll be right.
To Kill A King (2003), dir. Mike Barker.
40 notes
路
View notes
Text
yes i love 'to kill a king' (2003). yes i hate 'to kill a king' (2003). what's not clicking
#to kill a king (2003)#this film is sooo. like its so incredibly infuriating on so many levels#i feel like a large part of the reason i like it is that we have so few films about this period </3#filmmakers are so scared to actually tackle the period head on without resorting to the supernatural or witchcraft etc etc#so im grateful for that much. but MAN#i dont think a single thing in this film (apart from MAYBE some of the dialogue during the trial) is historically accurate#why is cromwell shooting civilians in the street. why are there half a dozen corpses randomly strung up outside st james palace#what the heck is going on w the cromwell family like genuinely#the depictions of religion in this film are also so banal#the whole section w poor anne is just loss.jpg im not joking#can someone explain cromwell's haircut to me too im still wrapping my head around that one#the entire trial was also hysterical#and charles' death scene was so silly!! where is the gravitas!#and the assassination attempt is actually so funny. pls. what is happening#just absolute chaos from start to finish. i hate it. 9/10
0 notes
Text
It's an odd thing, Mr. Ireton. Every man who wages war believes God is on his side. I'll warrant God should often wonder who is on his. Cromwell (1970)
124 notes
路
View notes
Photo
dougray scott as thomas fairfax in to kill a king (2003)
#to kill a king (2003)#thomas fairfax#anne fairfax#idk wth they thought they were doing w anne in this film RIP#like they clearly thought they were being subversive by showing a seventeenth century woman standing up to parliament during the trial#and also showing up at camp to see fairfax etc etc#and yet. these things happened in real life in a totally different and more compelling way#bizarre. ANYWAY#the costumes and settings in this film are so MWAH
18 notes
路
View notes
Photo
dougray scott as thomas fairfax in to kill a king (2003)
15 notes
路
View notes
Text
me logging on
me logging off
122 notes
路
View notes