carla 🐝🇪🇸 ΔS

if you don’t accept your favorite character’s flaws, you’re not a true fan. share a negative trait or something bad they’ve done.

Richard’s relationships, a summary

Only me, honestly, would fall for someone who’s been gone for over 800 years… and somehow being completely fine with it. Because he’s not dropping a new album, he’s not in a new movie, he’s not out there playing matches… and still, I don’t think I’ve ever had this much content about anything in my life. Endless books. Seriously, I don’t think I’ll ever run out. So many films, shows, interpretations (some good, some questionable). So much to learn, and every time you think you’ve got him figured out, there’s more. And then the best part, actually going to him. All these places I’m about to visit, places he lived in, fought in, ruled from, those he’s laid to res… and I already know two weeks won’t be enough to see it all 🥹

𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗜 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗔 𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗟 𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚. And I’m tired of hearing otherwise. For medieval kings, war wasn’t incidental, it was the job. Being a good king meant being good at war. And Richard was exceptionally good at it: dominant in close combat and widely considered one of the greatest generals of all time. Judging a medieval king by 21st-century standards, condemning him as “bad” for failing to embody what we now consider a “righteous” leader, “good to his people”, strikes me as fundamentally misguided. I have to insist: much of this persistent “Bad Richard” narrative owes more to Victorian moralizing than to the realities of his own time. We don’t need to romanticize Richard for a movie, but neither should we flatten him into something he wasn’t. He was not a “bad” king in the context of the world he inhabited. A film about him wouldn’t depict a gentle, benevolent ruler immersed in government; it would show a formidable strategist and commander. One who could judge and measure his enemies and friends at first glance and come up with the best plan whether to attack or to approach. Or, like he did in Jerusalem, to avoid conflict. A man who could order siege works into being and then stand alongside his men, hammer in hand, helping to build them himself (as he often did). A leader capable of recognizing and respecting an adversary like Saladin as someone worthy of his admiration and respect. What part of that does not define a great medieval king? And why was John (and so many others after) so bad? He wasn’t good at anything!! Not war, not the art of government, nothing.

The 90s, my favorite decade 😌😌