History Film / Anonymous

3rd Dec '17 11:15:13 AM TheAmazingBlachman
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: InUniverse for many historical figures.
** Creator/WilliamShakespeare was an uncouth, foul, egotiscal buffoon and [[spoiler:murderer of Christopher Marlowe.]]
** Queen Elizabeth I was not the Virgin Queen but a sex-hungry despot who had so many bastard kids she lost track of them [[spoiler:and ended up banging one of them.]]
** Edward de Vere was the true author of Shakespeare's plays, a tortured artist who wrote in secret because of his puritanical family, and [[spoiler:the child and incestuous lover of Queen Elizabeth.]]
8th Jun '17 10:13:32 AM NWolfman
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AluminumChristmasTrees: Yes, Shakespeare trutherism really does exists, and dates as far back as the turn of the 20th century. Many of the conspiracy theories presented here are ones held by real people, who refer to themselves as "Anti-Stratfordians."
11th Jan '17 12:26:54 PM Redmess
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** While it's certainly up for debate if the "Virgin Queen" really was a virgin, popping out tons of bastard children to the point that she lost count without anyone noticing would be rather difficult given that the Queen has to actually, you know, ''physically undergo nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.''

to:

** While it's certainly up for debate if the "Virgin Queen" really was a virgin, popping out tons of bastard children to the point that she lost count without anyone noticing would be rather difficult given that the Queen has to actually, you know, ''physically undergo nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.'''' Also note that Elizabeth regularly made a point of baring her belly precisely to demonstrate that she WAS a virgin, and not pregnant.
24th Aug '16 11:55:00 AM gemmabeta2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AnachronicOrder: Kyle Kallgren at ''Webvideo/BrowsHeldHigh'' [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3uYipLshD4 points out]] that this was probably done to stop the audience from noticing that the internal chronology of the film is both self-contradictory and flies in the face of almost all historical data.

to:

* AnachronicOrder: Kyle Kallgren at ''Webvideo/BrowsHeldHigh'' [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3uYipLshD4 points out]] that this was probably done to stop the audience from noticing that the internal chronology of the film is both self-contradictory and flies in the face of almost all historical data.data (a large quantity of which are completely beyond a shadow of a doubt and are even affirmed by most if not all anti-Stratfordian scholars).
1st Feb '16 11:36:33 AM Rebochan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** While it's certainly up for debate if the "Virgin Queen" really was a virgin, popping out tons of bastard children to the point that she lost count without anyone noticing would be rather difficult given that the Queen has to actually, you know, ''physically undergo nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.''
1st Feb '16 11:32:04 AM Rebochan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The Tudor Rose was not an ''actual'' flower, unlike what's depicted in the movie. It was meant to depict the union of the House of Lancaster (whose emblem was a red rose) and the House of York (who used a white rose).
28th Jan '16 5:31:12 PM Tuckerscreator
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The portrayal of UsefulNotes/RichardIII as an EvilCripple wasn't Shakespeare's invention: it appears as "[[BasedOnAGreatBigLie fact]]" in Polydore Vergil's ''Anglica Historia'', published in 1534 - over a decade before the births of both Edward and Shakespeare. Not to mention that the entire play was a giant piece of Tudor propaganda that was state-sanctioned to portray Richard III in a negative light.

to:

** The portrayal of UsefulNotes/RichardIII as an EvilCripple wasn't Shakespeare's invention: it appears as "[[BasedOnAGreatBigLie fact]]" in Polydore Vergil's ''Anglica Historia'', published in 1534 - over a decade before the births of both Edward and Shakespeare. Not to mention that the entire play was a giant piece of Tudor propaganda that was state-sanctioned to portray Richard III in a negative light.
9th Jan '16 10:17:02 AM StFan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The chronology is ''completely'' wrong. ''Theater/{{Macbeth}}'' is performed before ''Theater/{{Hamlet}}''. ''Macbeth'' is widely considered to be a rather late production by Shakespeare, and directly references King James I (who ascends to the throne at the end of the film).

to:

** The chronology is ''completely'' wrong. ''Theater/{{Macbeth}}'' ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'' is performed before ''Theater/{{Hamlet}}''.''Theatre/{{Hamlet}}''. ''Macbeth'' is widely considered to be a rather late production by Shakespeare, and directly references King James I (who ascends to the throne at the end of the film).
14th Sep '15 1:24:25 PM Redmess
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The portrayal of UsefulNotes/RichardIII as an EvilCripple wasn't Shakespeare's invention: it appears as "[[BasedOnAGreatBigLie fact]]" in Polydore Vergil's ''Anglica Historia'', published in 1534 - over a decade before the births of both Edward and Shakespeare.

to:

** The portrayal of UsefulNotes/RichardIII as an EvilCripple wasn't Shakespeare's invention: it appears as "[[BasedOnAGreatBigLie fact]]" in Polydore Vergil's ''Anglica Historia'', published in 1534 - over a decade before the births of both Edward and Shakespeare. Not to mention that the entire play was a giant piece of Tudor propaganda that was state-sanctioned to portray Richard III in a negative light.
This list shows the last 10 events of 85. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Film.Anonymous