- Mr. Moneybags, the mascot of Monopoly.
His name is "Rich Uncle Pennybags" or "Mr. Monopoly", and doe not wear a monocle, like he should.
: Well, if he "should" wear a monocle, couldn't this count as a subversion?
: A subversion would require a setup to suggest he has one, but he doesn't. This would be an aversion, if anything. It might
count as notable one though, because lots of people just assume
he has one, because he has the rest of the look.
Umptyscope: Winona Ryder's character in Heathers
wears a monocle when she writes in her journal, but isn't "rich" (especially when compared to the other "Heathers.") Subversion?
: Removed Uncle Pennybags again. Is it worth mentioning that (according to a Radio Times
interview) Hugh Laurie was supposed
to wear a monocle as the Upper-Class Twit
Lieutenant George in Blackadder Goes Forth
, but it wouldn't stay in?
: I've listed Uncle Pennybags as an aversion, because it seems to be the only way to stop people listing him as an example.
: Hey, it says here that these are only for rich folks in media, but I vaguely recall scenes of grimy watch-repair shops in which the tinker had to use a monocle (ETA: hmm, I think it's called a loupe
, and was more like a magnifying glass than a corrective lense). Not like he wore it outside the shop, though... and I couldn't tell you what that image is from. But I have the impression that there's potentially a related trope of monocle for people of that... preindustrial?... era, or maybe Steam Punk
era (hence the lack of modern two-lense glasses), who were far from rich, but rather had to work with tiny parts, and thus used a single glass to see. ETA: Hence, shouldn't there be a note to this effect on this page?