Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[jason_c]

Jason, Dave, I'm on the fence. My head says Richard had them killed. What else could he do? I can't think of any evidence that exonerates him or credibly suggests any other solution. My heart, on the other hand....

My heart remembers what an ardent Yorkist my dear mother is, remembers the feeling of tremendous sadness while walking Bosworth Field with her, hearing about the last English king brave enough to fight and die in battle himself. Mrs Flower and I once traveled to Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire to have a drink at The Crown - which was featured in one of our favourite films 'Withnail & I' (the infamous 'Penrith tea-rooms' is just across the square, though now it is a chemist, sadly), and we noted on one Stony Stratford house a plaque stating that the premises had previously been the Rose and Crown Inn, where in 1483 the young Edward V stayed the night before being taken to London and the Tower.

Interesting, thanks.

As a Scotsman it's hard for me to understand the strong feelings surrounding this subject 500 years later. Is there still a geographic element to these feelings? Do modern Yorkist's generally have roots in Yorkshire? 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?

[Henry Flower]

Jason, Dave, I'm on the fence. My head says Richard had them killed. What else could he do? I can't think of any evidence that exonerates him or credibly suggests any other solution. My heart, on the other hand....

My heart remembers what an ardent Yorkist my dear mother is, remembers the feeling of tremendous sadness while walking Bosworth Field with her, hearing about the last English king brave enough to fight and die in battle himself. Mrs Flower and I once traveled to Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire to have a drink at The Crown - which was featured in one of our favourite films 'Withnail & I' (the infamous 'Penrith tea-rooms' is just across the square, though now it is a chemist, sadly), and we noted on one Stony Stratford house a plaque stating that the premises had previously been the Rose and Crown Inn, where in 1483 the young Edward V stayed the night before being taken to London and the Tower.

This went seriously off-topic, sorry. We're supposed to be discussing whether Prince Albert Edward Victor was the anonymous nobleman playwright responsible for Sickert's suicide in the Tower or something..

[jason_c]

(OK I'll bite Maria) Which of course he couldn't have commited, but which Shakespeare couldn't honestly report, because of the dynasty for whom he was writing (ie the winners write the history books and the planta genista had long withered)....

All the best

Dave

The modern whitewash of Richard III continues. Richard without doubt is suspect no.1 for the murders. He had the means and motive to commit them. The Princes mother certainly believed him guilty.

Thomas More's account is as accurate as we are likely to get.

[Henry Flower]

Accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day. Only a man whose success or failure in life depends on intent would write things that way.

Errata I can't agree. Aside from Merry Wives, his plays are full of kings and earls, and nobles, who either agonize over their decisions on a purely moral level, or who know that their actions and decisions will necessarily have consequence not only for themselves, and their families, but possibly for entire nations also. Shakespeare's characters on so many occasions agonize over the extreme and unnatural weight that attends their decisions and their intents. The extremes of success and failure that wait upon their decisions are a level of accountability way above that of the normal man or woman, not below it. And in times as fractious and as politically tense as Shakespeare's were, that reflects the true political situation. It's simply not credible or factual to come out with a generalisation such as 'accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day'.

I don't argue that a nobleman therefore wrote the plays, not at all, but I simply don't think your argument is as logical as it is cute

[Errata]

I think one of the great things about Shakespeare's plays is how relate-able they are. He wrote several plays involving a bunch of people doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, or even people who do everything right and still end up wrong. In his true masterpieces, his characters have reasons for what they do. Good ones. Julius Caesar is a prime example. Othello is another one. Even Macbeth. You know why Othello does what he does. And it would seem reasonable given the information that he has. You know why Shylock does what he does, and even that is understandable. Brutus too, is an honorable man. It just doesn't work out. These are not concepts held in high regard by 17th century nobility. This is a common man. It's important to Shakespeare that you know why people do what they do. It is important that their actions be justified. Accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day. Only a man whose success or failure in life depends on intent would write things that way. To me it's the best argument against some anonymous noble author.

[mariab]

Don't disagree, Dave.

[Cogidubnus]

Minus the murders

(OK I'll bite Maria) Which of course he couldn't have commited, but which Shakespeare couldn't honestly report, because of the dynasty for whom he was writing (ie the winners write the history books and the planta genista had long withered)....

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

HUGE Shakes fan myself since age 9. :-) (My teacher called my parents cuz I was trying to re-create Richard III's behaviour at school. Minus the murders.)