Dillards 47: Tweeting Twit

[VelociRapture]

31 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

He most definitely did, but they were just rumours, part of the smear campaign against him. However I fully admit that it's a fun 'what if' scenario. And I hope it's clear that I was speaking firmly tongue in cheek and not telling anyone that they're not allowed to enjoy some historical fiction. I mean, hell, one of my NaNoWriMo efforts once involved a plot scenario where Richard and Elizabeth secretly married and she was sent away from court to give birth to their secret child!!! I am literally no better.  I just get nervous when people start to take it as fact.

Poor Richard. I fully admit that I am slightly biased in favour of Henry VII, who also wasn't treated all that kindly by future historians, but Richard was really raked over the coals. I mean, who knows, maybe he did deserve it. But damn, it got a little excessive there for a while.

Speaking of smear campaigns, there's no evidence that Arthur (Henry VIII's older brother) was weak or sickly during his lifetime. I think that idea arose years later when Catherine's people were trying to convince everyone that they hadn't consummated their marriage. 

See? Intrigue! Sex! Shenanigans! There are no dragons or ice zombies, but there are secret marriages and child murders and lots and lots of heads stuck on pikes. It's fantastic!

Lol! I understood what you meant and I fully agree. I think historical fiction is kind of a tough genre because you’re creating a narrative based off real people and actual events. I think finding a good balance between telling the story you want to tell, while still respecting the very real humans you’re writing about is difficult to do.

Gregory sometimes misses the mark on that in my opinion - not just with Richard and Elizabeth, but with Anne Boleyn (specifically with her brother, George) in “The Other Boleyn Girl.” I do think she gave a very interesting and lovely perspective on Katherine of Aragon in, “The Constant Princess,” though and I appreciated the care she appeared to take to portray the three leads in, “The Boleyn Inheritance,” as more than just one dimensional characters. 

As for Richard himself... I very much doubt he was the evil villain Shakespeare portrayed, but I also very much doubt anyone other than Richard would have been able to murder Edward V and Prince Richard. I think there’s just too much circumstantial evidence pointing his way for it to merely be a coincidence. I believe he was likely a very brave man and he probably wasn’t a bad ruler, but he also probably wasn’t completely  the innocent victim of a smear campaign by the Tudors either. 

I think that’s what makes historical fiction so tough. Most people aren’t wholly good or wholly evil and it can be tough to reflect that fact. Anne Boleyn helped do horrible things to Katharine of Aragon and Princess Mary, but she also seems to have loved her own daughter very much and absolutely didn’t deserve what was done to her. Jane Seymour wasn’t well educated, but she also seems to have jumped at opportunity when it presented itself and had enough sense to know she shouldn’t challenge Henry the way Anne did. Henry VII was kind of cheap at times and treated his widowed daughter-in-law horribly for years, but he appears to have truly and genuinely loved his wife (going off how hard he took her death - he showed real grief as he mourned for her and even refused anyone to see him other than his mother for a period of time.) And Margaret Beaufort, his mother, wasn’t just a formidable matriarch hyper focused on her religious - she was also a child bride who was so terrified of losing her only child that she willingly sent him into exile, even though it meant not seeing him for years.

[singsingsing]

8 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Henry VII was kind of cheap at times and treated his widowed daughter-in-law horribly for years, but he appears to have truly and genuinely loved his wife (going off how hard he took her death - he showed real grief as he mourned for her and even refused anyone to see him other than his mother for a period of time.)

I'm personally convinced that the back-to-back deaths of his oldest son and heir and his wife (who he seems to have loved very much) completely destroyed him and brought out the worst in his character. I think Arthur's death would have put him close to the edge anyway, but Elizabeth's death sent him straight over the edge. He would not have been nearly as paranoid and severe if it weren't for that trauma. I think he was basically done after that and just wanted to hold the kingdom together and secure the throne for his remaining son, so he gave free reign to some pretty nasty characters.  

I agree with everything you said about historical fiction. It's a tough line to walk. I think it's worth it, though. Some of it goes way too far, some of it is just bad, but it is what it is. People have always been telling stories about real people who came before them. If I'm writing historical fiction, I'm always kind of sending out thoughts to the universe like, "Hey [historical person], I'm sorry if I'm attributing inaccurate actions or thoughts to you! Sorry!!" 

You don't want to mess with a real person's character just for dramatic effect, but you also don't want to tread so lightly that you make them a saint when they weren't. Richard III may not have been quite that evil, but he was far from perfect and probably did some pretty messed up stuff. Henry VIII wasn't a sex addict lunatic with insatiable blood lust like he's sometimes presented, but he definitely wasn't just a misunderstood nice guy.

I felt like Hilary Mantel did a really good job with this in her books about Thomas Cromwell. Her characterization was incredible.

Yeah, I think there's a balance to be struck between completely twisting a historical person's character just to make things more dramatic/sexy/shocking and being able to take it with a grain of salt - knowing that we don't know everything about these people and if we're going to write, read and enjoy stories about them we have to be able to suspend our disbelief and be willing to accept that they're inevitably going to be mischaracterized to some extent.

[justoneoftwo]

I think even before those deaths Henry VII had some issues and should have.  He had a lot of trauma in his life and was justifiably worried about his crown.

[Bethella]

2 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@Bethella,  you can get cookies based on a recipe from Hildegard of Bingen from Monastery Greetings:

https://www.monasterygreetings.com/product/Hildegard-Cookies-2-pack/Cookies

They're made by the Benedictine sisters at Monastery of the Immaculate Conception, Ferdinand, Indiana.

They're are lots of recipe variations for those cookies out there and I'm sure they're great but they aren't her real recipe. The original was a medicinal biscuit that called for spices (nutmeg, cinnamon and cloves), flour and water. There's no sugar or leavening in the recipe (think similar to hard-tack). 

[singsingsing]

33 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I think even before those deaths Henry VII had some issues and should have.  He had a lot of trauma in his life and was justifiably worried about his crown.

He definitely had issues. His main issue was probably that 75% of the population of England might've had a better claim to the throne than he did, and he knew it.  It's kind of a miracle he kept it together. If he hadn't died when he did, he might've been deposed and the Wars of the Roses would've just kept on rolling. This is what a lot of people don't realize about Henry VIII. There was a very good reason he was obsessed to the point of insanity with having a male heir and with eliminating threats to his power. He was rightly terrified that the whole thing would collapse with him.

[VelociRapture]

2 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I'm personally convinced that the back-to-back deaths of his oldest son and heir and his wife (who he seems to have loved very much) completely destroyed him and brought out the worst in his character. I think Arthur's death would have put him close to the edge anyway, but Elizabeth's death sent him straight over the edge. He would not have been nearly as paranoid and severe if it weren't for that trauma. I think he was basically done after that and just wanted to hold the kingdom together and secure the throne for his remaining son, so he gave free reign to some pretty nasty characters.  

I agree with everything you said about historical fiction. It's a tough line to walk. I think it's worth it, though. Some of it goes way too far, some of it is just bad, but it is what it is. People have always been telling stories about real people who came before them. If I'm writing historical fiction, I'm always kind of sending out thoughts to the universe like, "Hey [historical person], I'm sorry if I'm attributing inaccurate actions or thoughts to you! Sorry!!" 

You don't want to mess with a real person's character just for dramatic effect, but you also don't want to tread so lightly that you make them a saint when they weren't. Richard III may not have been quite that evil, but he was far from perfect and probably did some pretty messed up stuff. Henry VIII wasn't a sex addict lunatic with insatiable blood lust like he's sometimes presented, but he definitely wasn't just a misunderstood nice guy.

I felt like Hilary Mantel did a really good job with this in her books about Thomas Cromwell. Her characterization was incredible.

Yeah, I think there's a balance to be struck between completely twisting a historical person's character just to make things more dramatic/sexy/shocking and being able to take it with a grain of salt - knowing that we don't know everything about these people and if we're going to write, read and enjoy stories about them we have to be able to suspend our disbelief and be willing to accept that they're inevitably going to be mischaracterized to some extent.

I completely agree about Henry VII. He was never a Saint, but he suffered three tremendous losses in a very short time - first Arthur (his son and his heir, who he had spent so long grooming for the throne), his newborn daughter Katherine (who died either during or soon after birth), and finally Elizabeth (who he kind of had to marry, but who he also appears to have had a relatively happy marriage with.) Those are massive losses on their own, but in less than a year?! Forget it. That’d be too much for most people to take.

As for Henry VIII, I think he was obviously over indulged as a child and he wasn’t as prepared for the power he inherited as Arthur would have been because he had less time to prepare. I think that, combined with his injuries - specifically the head injuries and leg wound - likely gave a massive hit to his emotional and mental health. Someone in constant and excruciating pain that can’t be relieved isn’t going to always be a pleasant person to be around nor will they be capable of making entirely rational choices on a regular basis.*

He also had to deal with rebellions and threats to his throne, though maybe not to the extent his father did. And I honestly think the pregnancy losses and stillbirths Katherine suffered throughout their marriage may have affected him more deeply than many people give him credit for, especially when their newborn son suddenly died at a month old. I don’t think burying that baby would have been easy for them. He clearly doted on Mary when she was young and he was exceptionally proud of her, but she wasn’t the son he needed to succeed him. By modern standards it’s ridiculous to say that, but times were very different back then and pretty much everyone believed only a strong man could lead a country. 

*I know we have some FJers who deal with a lot of physical pain on a regular basis and I want to be clear that I intend no offense whatsoever. I think the circumstances surrounding why Henry VIII became who he was are unique to his specific situation and don’t reflect on anyone else. 

35 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I think even before those deaths Henry VII had some issues and should have.  He had a lot of trauma in his life and was justifiably worried about his crown.

He really didn’t have a solid grip on the throne for a long time and he had to deal with people claiming to be his dead BILs multiple times too. You’re absolutely right that not knowing if he’d be able to hold the throne or protect his family likely took a big toll and his additional losses likely only exacerbated the paranoia and fear already obvious in his personality.

[zygote373]

 

[SamiKatz]

23 minutes ago, zygote373 said:

 

I think that's the Omarosa response to getting fired, lol.

[singsingsing]

1 minute ago, SamiKatz said:

I think that's the Omarosa response, lol.

I mean, the Duggars also seem to do nothing but plan weddings... 

[SamiKatz]

13 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I mean, the Duggars also seem to do nothing but plan weddings... 

I read online that Omarosa asked for/was denied permission to take her wedding photos at the White House, and showed up anyway with a wedding party of 39 people!  

[nickelodeon]

Trying to figure out what this bitter tweet is really saying. When he says "I decided it would be best for my family to cut ties, as we are heading in a different direction", does he mean that he decided to stop being on TV while Jill and the kids still perform, or that he decided that the whole Dill family isn't doing it anymore?

In either case, HA HA, loooooser.

[GracieLou Free Duggar]

50 minutes ago, zygote373 said:

 

Just as long as that direction is not 'Up.'

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

Tweeting Twit indeed. The fact that he's tweeting defensively only makes it look more like he was fired.

As always, there are some great responses to this tweet, along with eyeroll inducing leghumpers spouting 'Christian persecution' BS.

[Sky with diamonds]

1 hour ago, zygote373 said:

 

The more he tweets, the more he is digging a hole for himself...and his family. Ugh.

[zygote373]

I also find it hilarious that he is digging up a month old story to complain about what people find newsworthy. Well, you’ve made people talk about it again by bringing attention to it!! Why not address it right when it happened?

[Bad Wolf]

If it was Derick's decision to leave TLC, why didn't he announce it himself? TLC  made the announcement after Derick's hateful tweets. Sure, we believe you, Derick. It was definitely your decision. 

[Georgiana]

"YOU CAN'T FIRE ME, I QUIT! MONTHS AGO!" ~Derick Dillard

(also, thank you to all the people who were so gracious in the previous debate.  I got a bit too riled, and I regret it.  I truly admire everyone who responded with such class and were able to have such an excellent discussion.)

[BlondeIdol]

Woah. I think Derick was definitely fired. Especially after that tweet. Derick is so childish he's basically a twelve year old in my mind. Apologies to twelve year olds for the insult. 

So does this mean no Jill, Izzy or Samuel on Counting On?  

[justoneoftwo]

I am guessing no Sam Izzy or Jill.  I personally would want to show something of Sam's birth (edited) to try to prove I did nothing wrong.  Given that it seems they always do the opposite of what I would I'm betting they don't want to show anything of that, and if they won't show that I can't imagine TLC will pay for much else.  

[Sky with diamonds]

Jill...the new Anna to appear only sometimes? 

I wonder if Derick will allow her to be shown? Hmm.

[Shadoewolf]

Yeeah not buying it Derick. "They didn't fire me, I quit" is one of the oldest lines in the book. If it was your choice to leave there would've been a cutesy press release via TLC, DFO, and probably People magazine way back in the summer. Just gives him more of the martyr image he prefers to sell it this way. 

[marmalade]

[KnittingOwl]

2 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

Trying to figure out what this bitter tweet is really saying. When he says "I decided it would be best for my family to cut ties, as we are heading in a different direction", does he mean that he decided to stop being on TV while Jill and the kids still perform, or that he decided that the whole Dill family isn't doing it anymore?

In either case, HA HA, loooooser.

Pretty sure he means he's the MAN of the house and HE decided that posting transphobic tweets was more important than getting money from TLC.  What Jill wants doesn't factor in.  Because he's the man.  And the decider. 

[Drala]

I think he may be a bit embarrassed  that his firing became a national news item via FOX.  I'm sure  he'd rather forget events surrounding  the "decision"--regardless of whether it was his or TLC  that made the call.

[Sky with diamonds]

5 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

Pretty sure he means he's the MAN of the house and HE decided that posting transphobic tweets was more important than getting money from TLC.  What Jill wants doesn't factor in.  Because he's the man.  And the decider. 

Derick seems to be the type to only think of himself. 

I find myself feeling even more sorry for Jill and the kids.