As I read Richard III, it occurs to me that the Dukes of Clarence were not lucky:
1) Lionel, Duke of Clarence, (1338-1368), son of Edward III, poisoned while visiting Italy.
2) Thomas, Duke of Clarence, (1388-1421), son of Henry IV, killed stupidly leading his troops in battle against the French (the archers hadn’t arrived but he ordered the attack anyway).
3) George, Duke of Clarence, (1449-1478), younger brother of Edward IV, supposedly drowned in a butt of malmsey wine on his brother’s orders.
5) Albert, Duke of Clarence, (1864-1892), the future George V’s elder brother, regarded by his family as feeble-minded and not excessively mourned when he died early.
Also there is the Duke of Clarence who never was, Lord Guilford Dudley (1536-1544) who was married to Lady Jane Grey, briefly queen of England in 1543. They were both executed the following year, but the original plan was for him to be made Duke of Clarence if she had managed to hang onto the throne.
The only slightly successful one was 4) William, Duke of Clarence, (1765-1837) who lived longer than any two of the others put together and ended up as King William IV; probably the least memorable of the Hanoverian kings. But sometimes obscurity is a blessing.
I really enjoyed the film – I’ve not read a Tintin book since 1984 or so, and I don’t think I read any of these three – and so did who’s never read any (but would like to now). , on the other hand, was bitterly disappointed by the ‘liberties’ taken with it, although he agrees that putting Herge in was a nice touch, and that the plot of TSOTU alone would not have sustained the film. I suspect we’ll see the next one too.
(There was a not-very-happy review in Saturday’s Guardian, by an academic. I couldn’t help feeling he’d missed at least part of the point, which is that a film children enjoy will lead children to discover the books. Adults who already know the books by heart really aren’t the target audience for a PG film.)