Writer's Block: True Crime

[fajrdrako]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

The murder of Conrad de Montferrat, King of Jerusalem in 1192. Popular speculation is that Richard the Lionheart had him killed; I think that's nonsense, as Richard had too much to lose and too little to gain. I think it was Henri de Champagne, who stood to gain the widow and the kingdom.

Other favourites: the murder of William II of England, a gay king probably killed by his brother.

The murder of Thomas Becket in 1170 isn't exactly a mystery, but it's a fascinating case of political conflict and friendship gone wrong. All the more in that Henry II is my favourite English king.

The fate of Louis LVII was a favourite mystery, too, but I think it has now been settled with the disinterrment of his bones and examination of DNA evidence.

I'm also interested in deaths of Xerxes of Persia, and of Attila the Hun.

Modern murders tend to interest me less, except in fiction.

Comments

[seanchaidh.livejournal.com]

What's your definition of modern? :)

I was thinking about the D'Arcy McGee murder the other day. Would be interesting to write a novel from the POV of his fictitious murderer, who is literally just sitting back, gleeful over the proceedings.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Thomas D'Arcy McGee one is interesting. It has a similar mysteriousness to the JFK assassination, but it's Canadian!

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

Silly question: how do you go about checking for Writer's Block every day? Is it a case of having someone on your flist post, so you click through, or is there some way to have the daily question appear on one's flist or something?

I've always been interested in Jack the Ripper, wondered who the heck he was and who the heck protected him from capture.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

If you go to your own LJ, at the top left (to the right of your icon) you should have a link marked "HOME". Click on that and you'll come to a page that should have the Writer's Block question in the top centre of the monitor. With a handy-dnager click-button that puts its right on your own LJ entry.

Jack the Ripper was fascinating, and there has been so much written about him. So much that I don't find any of the theories I've come across satisfying - not so far.

I once went on a midnight walking tour of London's East End to see the sites of the Jack the Ripper killings. It was very cool.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

I took that same walking tour back in the 1980s! Wow, I wish I could remember it better, but a lot of time has passed and at this point I scarcely remember it at all. Next time I visit, I'm definitely going to take that tour again.

The problem with the subject is that so very much has been written about Jack the Ripper, and of course there have been many (generally hokey) documentaries and docudramas about the subject. Sadly, I always get the feeling that the people involved either have an agenda they're jumping through hoops to find proof for and/or are playing the subject for maximum drama rather than veracity. It was... the SECOND COUSIN ONCE REMOVED OF THE PRINCE OF WALES!!! No, really! The subject is too famous, too "sexy" -- just too much everything. I never get the feeling the writers or producers are looking for the truth of the matter. I suppose a real journalist or historian or documentary-maker has at some point taken on the whole mess and winnowed out the lies and exaggerations, but good luck finding that book/documentary in the tons that are out there.

Thanks for the writer's block tip, I enjoy writing those!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I agree with all your comments.

And sometimes the Writer's Block item is really lame, but sometimes it's equally interesting, so worth keeping an eye on.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I can't imagine Champagne Harry having the balls to bump off Conrad without having at least the tacit support of Uncle Richard. It was remarkably well-timed: Richard's candidate Guy de Lusignan loses the election, and ooops! the winner gets stabbed a few days later…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I follow your reasoning - I'm just not convinced! Not yet. Plausible, but unproved.

Too bad we don't have more evidence.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

The pro-Richard accounts bend over backwards to suggest he was shocked and horrified by what happened and by Harry's immediate seizing of the pregnant widow. Also, the Asssassins were in place for about 6 months, which is roughly the time since Richard discovered that Conrad was conducting his own negotiations with Saladin (which, as de jure King, he was perfectly entitled to do!).

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have a mental image of everyone conducting their own negotions with Saladin - everyone who could. There weren't many of the Big Players there who weren't ambitious, one way or another.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

No. Only Conrad and Richard were in a position to do so. Everyone else was lined up behind one or the other of them.

Richard really took exception to it because he regarded himself as "leader of the Crusade" and basically was propping up Guy, who was stil claiming to be King. The fact Conrad was married to the rightful Queen didn't count as far as he was concerned.

Richard's envoy was Isabella's ex-husband, Humfrey de Toron. He saw Reynaud Grenier of Sidon - Conrad's envoy, and brother-in-law (he was now married to Helvis d'Ibelin) – riding out with Al-Adil, so realised the game was up!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Interesting times in diplomatic circles.

I meant that everyone had a stake, and everyone was taking sides, both overtly and covertly.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

That's not what you said, though. You seemed to be implying that anyone could negotiate at top-level with the enemy. The point was, only the King of Jerusalem and the leader of the Crusade could. And Richard's problem was that, while Phil's departure meant he regarded himself as leader of the Crusade expedition, he seems to have regarded himself as spokesman for Guy as King of Jerusalem as well – when there was already another King of Jerusalem.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

You seemed to be implying that anyone could negotiate at top-level with the enemy.

Wasn't what I meant. I mis-spoke, perhaps. I meant that everyone has a stake in the power plays and there were all sorts of deals being made and formed.

Too many kings.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Too many kings.

Yes. Guy should have stepped down when Sibylla died, since their daughters had predeceased her.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Becket was justifiable Archiepiscopicide.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes! Brilliant word.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I just made it up!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Not exactly a unique situation. It needs its own word.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

"Justifiable"? How so? I knew that King Henry II and Becket were quarreling, but I thought the assassins in this case were (re)acting to the King's temper tantrum.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

"Justifiable"? How so?

Not necessarily legally justifiable, and I don't think it is the four knights in question that silverwhistle meant, though it could have been. In terms of the political controversy, my sympathies are all with Henry: he wanted autonomy for English law and the Pope wanted legistlative power in England. Similar scenarios were being played out all over Europe, equally dramatically, as the Papacy increasingly (and successfully) tried to assert its power.

In personal terms - well. I shouldn't go there, perhaps, since it's so subjective. Henry was betrayed by a friend he thought he could trust.

I do believe Henry's statement that his outburst was not meant as a command - the murder of Becket caused more trouble for him than it was worth. (Personal feelings aside. I think he also mourned to loss of a former friend.)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

In the sense of Becket being an obnoxious and arrogant bastard who was just asking for it… Even the Pope thought he'd been going too far.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I would have put it that way but I thought it would sound too, well, emotionally involved and I was trying to sound detatched. But yes. The bastard!

[topgeargirl2.livejournal.com]

Jack the Ripper interests me.

I once read in a book about Sherlock Holmes, a thesis written suggesting that Sherlock Holmes might have been Jack the Ripper.

One problem, Sherlock Holmes is fictional.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe he fictionally did the murders - !

Alternate reality?

[topgeargirl2.livejournal.com]

I don't know.

But I heard that Sherlock Holmes fans treat him like he really did exist.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sure. I treat Captain Jack Harkness as if he really exists, too. Fictional people are real! Just... real in their own imaginary way.

[topgeargirl2.livejournal.com]

I treat the Doctor like he exists as well and Captain Jack Harkness

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

They may not really exist, but they ought to.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

For fictional culprits, I'd blame Angel Clare. Brazil was just a cover story: he was killing prostitutes.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ah-hah!