Mary, the Magdalene woman. The most unfairly maligned person in all recorded history.
Ned Kelly: notorious but earning tons of sympathy.
2007-06-12 04:25:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Oh, without doubt, it must be Richard III. Shakespeare and Thomas More have a lot to answer for with this one.
There's a great little book by Josephine Tay 'The Daughter of time' which is written almost as a novel and introduces the main arguments in defence of Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
He didn't have a hunchback, had a greater claim to the throne than any other and was held in deep affection by the North. His successor, the first Tudor, Henry VII was an imposter to the crown and might even have murdered the two princes - it certainly wasn't Richard.
And Mary Qof S would never have found herself trapped in the Tudor shennanigins!
Thanks for the rant!
2007-06-12 04:45:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by J S 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
I know he has probably just as many positive's as negative's but the historical figure I think has been unfairly maligned is Che Guevara, a brilliant man, educated as a physician from a relatively well to do family, he had strong nationalist feeling for Central America and resented US involvement in Central America for captialism. He felt they were being exploited and his people kept in poverty for American interests. He was part of a growing group of intellectuals in central america pushing to establish more autonomy. He was a marxist and detested the example of capitalism that he witnessed from the US. He saw upclose the dirty politics, the actions of the CIA in Central America and he was appalled.
I don't believe Castro could have taken Cuba without him. He was a brilliant general, strategist and tactician. He worked side by side with his army. He also established Cuba's banking system and economy.
He was an enemy of the US Government and his was a formidable foe and I think as such he should be given the respect he deserves.
2007-06-12 04:34:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jackie Oh! 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
George the Third.
A good King who unfortunatley suffered from a disability that affected his ability to influence the Goverment of the Day.
He was all for reforms all over the country and had to cope with a goverment bent on destroying the French, Spanish and American Rebels. Expansion of the Empire, and a couple of years of famine destroyed the hopes and lives of many.
As for Mary. A Queen ravaged by revenge against her fathers edicts against Rome a Religious Fanatic who supported the killing of hundreds of good Englishmen for refusing to take the Catholic Mass and repent there so called Heresey. I am glad she did not reign for long and was childless, otherwise this country would have had a very different history as well as the world.
2007-06-12 12:17:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kevan M 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Richard Nixon. Though he was definitely a dirty bastard (He had the FBI watch Joe Namath of all people because he though he was a communist) he actually did some really good things, like the Clean Air and Water acts, created the National Endowments for the Arts and Sciences, created repore and therefore trade with China, established a long period of relatively good relations with the Soviet Union, and a few other things. Not enough people really remember that.
I also think Cain from the Bible deserves a bit of a shoutout, because even though he took things too far, as Mark Twain said "Nothing is so annoying as a good example."
2007-06-12 04:38:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by Prop Forward 3
·
7⤊
1⤋
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli author of The Prince has had a bad press over the years, allegedly for promulgating the idea that the ends justify the means, and that politicians should be ruthless and unprincipled in the pursuit of power.
In actual fact he should be perceived as a political scientist and realist merely describing what is - not as someone outlining a blueprint for tyranny.
2007-06-12 05:18:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well....Mary had people killed for religious reasons..... that's the source of the name. She in fact did have a rough childhood, mean step mom and all. However, I can't feel badly for anyone who caries out acts of religious intolerance.
Marie Antoinette loved her kids as well....but there were people in dire need in her country that she didn't see...until...she was on a guillotine.
History is cruel...it places what otherwise may be a good person in a weird situation and their reputation is cast forever.
I have always liked Voltaire's attitude. I feel he is greatly misunderstood, especially by christianity. However he lived in a day when few people had a sense of humor or the capacity to appreciate his work.
just an opinion
2007-06-12 04:48:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by lorem_ipsum 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Henry VIII...he was seen as cruel when all he wanted was a succesor, and a faithful wife that truly loved him...i mean he wasn't even treated with the same regard as his older brother arthur because he was in line for the throne and henry wasn't....
anne boleyn wasn't a nice person and despite everyone's disagreement...she was a tramp along with catherine howard....
2007-06-19 16:32:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by FiestyRed717 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you to a large extent. She lived in fear of death for many of her younger years (as did Elizabeth). She was a decent person throughout those years but then it all went wrong. She was frustrated in her love for Philip, who was younger than she was, and she was frustrated in her inability to bear a child. She had always been deeply religious,but as she turned to it more and more it became a fanatical devotion. In the end she rightly deserves her 'Bloody Mary' reputation, the burnings the tortures etc. Terrible to think
that it could have been down to the menopause and unrequited love.
Re Richard lll, I agree with JS. A much maligned king.
2007-06-12 09:40:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Beau Brummell 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Gido Fawkes
2007-06-19 01:24:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
2⤊
0⤋