Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

[Henry Flower]

Jason, I haven't a clue. My mother is Irish! She's never lived in either Yorkshire or Lancashire. She is a complete history buff. I think - knowing her thought processes as I do - she simply took a strong dislike to Henry VII (understandable) and thereafter romanticised Richard III to the point where it became impossible for her to believe that the Tudors had not blackened the reputation of a great and good and rightful king.

I think there's a little truth in that, obviously, but it doesn't blind me to the fact that the sheer number of sudden arrests and executions that followed Richard's assumption of the role of 'Protector' makes it look like an undeniably ugly coup d'etat.

[Errata]

Jason, I haven't a clue. My mother is Irish! She's never lived in either Yorkshire or Lancashire. She is a complete history buff. I think - knowing her thought processes as I do - she simply took a strong dislike to Henry VII (understandable) and thereafter romanticised Richard III to the point where it became impossible for her to believe that the Tudors had not blackened the reputation of a great and good and rightful king.

I think there's a little truth in that, obviously, but it doesn't blind me to the fact that the sheer number of sudden arrests and executions that followed Richard's assumption of the role of 'Protector' makes it look like an undeniably ugly coup d'etat.

I think most people who ever read "the Daughter of Time" have been convinced, at least temporarily, of Richard's innocence. I remember looking up the various arguments to see if they were in fact true, and a good deal of them are. It really does appear that once the boys were declared illegitimate, they were no threat to Richard. But they were a threat to Henry. If the young princes were considered a viable option for the throne, why did Richard's enemies not rally around them? And then why not be outraged upon discovering their death? In the end, I agree with Josephine Tey. It isn't that Richard was incapable of murder, it's that he was incapable of THIS murder. If Richard's hold on the throne was so tenuous that living princes were threat, missing princes did him no good. Dead ones did, but everyone would have had to know they were dead. And they didn't.

[jason_c]

I think most people who ever read "the Daughter of Time" have been convinced, at least temporarily, of Richard's innocence. I remember looking up the various arguments to see if they were in fact true, and a good deal of them are. It really does appear that once the boys were declared illegitimate, they were no threat to Richard. But they were a threat to Henry. If the young princes were considered a viable option for the throne, why did Richard's enemies not rally around them? And then why not be outraged upon discovering their death? In the end, I agree with Josephine Tey. It isn't that Richard was incapable of murder, it's that he was incapable of THIS murder. If Richard's hold on the throne was so tenuous that living princes were threat, missing princes did him no good. Dead ones did, but everyone would have had to know they were dead. And they didn't.

Well the Princes' mother viewed Richard as a threat, and the culprit. This does not prove his guilt but it is a damning indictment of contemporary opinion of Richard. The missing princes doing him no good is a point of interest, but history is full of characters taking wrong steps politically, from Caesar to Lord Essex to Gordon Brown. Was this simply one of these missteps?

If political maneuverings gone awry is evidence of innocence then a whole lot of historic characters/villains are now vindicated.

[mariab]

The modern Yorkshire v Lancashire rivalry I know about. Is this rivalry linked to the events of the War of the Roses all those years ago?

This cracked me up. Can you imagine how die hard this would be if it were true?

Standing on the fence about the real Richard III having murdered the heirs (he clearly had the motive and the opportunity, but do we have any real evidence?), what's obvious is that Shakes' Richard III is a highly romanticized figure (and a fascinating anti-hero, possibly my favorite in all Shakespeare). Just wanted to make a note of the fact that the exact opposite happened with Don Carlos, Prince of Asturias. Historically an inbred, deformed, mentally unstable sadist (was engaging in animal torture since childhood), he's been romanticized into the ultimate romantic hero and political activist by Schiller and Verdi, lol. It's interesting how art creates (urban) legends.

[jason_c]

This cracked me up. Can you imagine how die hard this would be if it were true?

Standing on the fence about the real Richard III having murdered the heirs (he clearly had the motive and the opportunity, but do we have any real evidence?), what's obvious is that Shakes' Richard III is a highly romanticized figure (and a fascinating anti-hero, possibly my favorite in all Shakespeare). Just wanted to make a note of the fact that the exact opposite happened with Don Carlos, Prince of Asturias. Historically an inbred, deformed, mentally unstable sadist (was engaging in animal torture since childhood), he's been romanticized into the ultimate romantic hero and political activist by Schiller and Verdi, lol. It's interesting how art creates (urban) legends.

I realise its a bit of a dumb comment I made. I should have asked are there still "overtones" of this medieval conflict still in place today? The Yorkist voice is still fairly strong these days.

[Errata]

Well the Princes' mother viewed Richard as a threat, and the culprit. This does not prove his guilt but it is a damning indictment of contemporary opinion of Richard. The missing princes doing him no good is a point of interest, but history is full of characters taking wrong steps politically, from Caesar to Lord Essex to Gordon Brown. Was this simply one of these missteps?

If political maneuverings gone awry is evidence of innocence then a whole lot of historic characters/villains are now vindicated.

She viewed his as a threat, but not so much of one that she didn't come out of sanctuary and return to court with her daughters. We don't know if she viewed him as a culprit, because as best as anyone can figure, there was only ever one reference to the princes being dead, and that was in France. While it would seem obvious that everyone knew the princes were missing, no one wrote it down anywhere. There is nothing to suggest that anyone in London thought the princes were anywhere other than where they were supposed to be. And since the Tower was a royal residence and not a prison, it beggars belief that they disappeared without anyone knowing about it. So if Richard did kill them, a lot of people knew about it. But none of them said a word about it. That doesn't ring true.

[Henry Flower]

"Caesar to [...] Gordon Brown"

Good God, there's two figures I never imagined I'd see discussed in the same sentence. From the sublime to the ridiculous, as they say.

[Cogidubnus]

I seem to have inadvertently diverted this thread off-topic...I do apologise

Dave

[Henry Flower]

Has anyone noticed that this thread was supposed to be discussing the Shakespeare authorship issue but got hijacked by apologists for Richard III? I think that whoever is to blame for this should not only find themselves banned for life from Casebook, but should also face prosecution in a court of law.

[Henry Flower]

Oh.... sorry Dave. Didn't see your post.

[jason_c]

Has anyone noticed that this thread was supposed to be discussing the Shakespeare authorship issue but got hijacked by apologists for Richard III? I think that whoever is to blame for this should not only find themselves banned for life from Casebook, but should also face prosecution in a court of law.

Im a Richard detractor and im just as guilty of going off topic as his apologists were. Still, Richard III defenders sent to the Tower without trial is an appropriate punishment in my view.

Henry, my choice of politicians was fully intentional. From the great to the.......not so great.

[mariab]

This is one of the minor highjacks, I've seen (and have instigated) much worse.

[Cogidubnus]

Distraction tactics

Quick everyone...get the witch!

Dave

[Henry Flower]

The witch? Are we on Macbeth now? At least we're back on topic. Nice move Dave.

[jason_c]

The witch? Are we on Macbeth now? At least we're back on topic. Nice move Dave.

Casebook members as Shakespearean characters, now that's a thread in itself!


Trevor Marriot as Dogberry?