marduk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "a lot of the points of reference that would have
> been common in Shakespeare's day are no longer so
> in ours ... "
>
> yes thats what i'm saying. he's out of date.
What I was really trying to say was that, since Shakespeare's day, the world has changed out of all recog
by
Anonymous User
-
Ancient History
*snerk* Poor Marduk. Shakespeare *is* hard to remember I suppose - if you didn't happen to have certain speeches imprinted on your grey matter through constant repetition by your grandfather who was an enthusiast. He also did Marlow's Faust - and a Shylock that would knock your eyes out! I may be somewhat biased but as far as I'm concerned no professional actor has ever done Hamle
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
Here are some other relevant links:
Also, this next link includes a fantastic bibliography of web pages ranging from an anonymous poem by a reputed eyewitness to the Battle of Bosworth.. to the young Jane Austin's humorous look at the Ricardian controversy .. to various and sundry texts and histories relating to Richard III and that period of history.
Happy reading,
by
Sue
-
Ancient History
Isn't there a new theory out that proves that the princes in the tower were illegitimate bastards and so a threat to the god given throne of england. Apparently their grandmother conceived them while their grandfather was away at the crusades. The real father was a french bowman or something like that. Either way there's never been any evidence that richard did anything to harm them or
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
Pandora Wrote:
> I'm not sure that I was ever very keen on the
> historical plays ... but, all the same, Marduk,
> that's rather a harsh dismissal of the greatest
> poets and dramatists the world has ever known! If
> you didn't like his histories, why not try
> something with a bit more immediate appeal, like
> "Twelfth Night", for instance?
by
Sue
-
Ancient History
"a lot of the points of reference that would have been common in Shakespeare's day are no longer so in ours ... "
yes thats what i'm saying. he's out of date. And as for him being a great wordsmith pah the man had thriteen ways of spelling his own name. i think his english teacher should have been right. now there was a man of true genius vision
all arguments aside.
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
marduk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my point on this was that it would have been far
> easier for romeo to say "my you look pretty
> tonight juliet"
> and it would have been easier to remember.
But far less memorable! The point is, surely, that metaphors, handled properly, can make far more of a dramatic impact.
As it
>
by
Anonymous User
-
Ancient History
Marduk, that's rather a harsh dismissal of the greatest poets and dramatists the world has ever known!
no that was noel coward or oscar wilde
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
"but soft what light through yonder window breaks
> tis the east and juliet is the sun
> arise fair sun and kill this envious moon
> who is already sick and pale with grief
> that thou her maid are more fair than she
> be not her maid for she is envious
> Her vestal livery is but sick and green,
> And none but fools do wear it. Cast it off.
> It is my
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
marduk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> methinks the lady doth not realise that i myself
> having once been a professional actor in my youth
> was forced against my better judgement to study
> and perform all of this poltroons endless and
> inequitous pile of cursed letters.
>
You're quite right. I didn't realize.
&
by
Anonymous User
-
Ancient History
all the same, Marduk, that's rather a harsh dismissal of the greatest poets and dramatists the world has ever known! If you didn't like his histories, why not try something with a bit more immediate appeal, like "Twelfth Night", for instance? Or one or two of the better known sonnets?
methinks the lady doth not realise that i myself having once been a professional actor in
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
marduk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poor old richard III
> the amount of things they've got wrong about him
> already are astounding.
I'm not sure what the most up-to-date view of him is. (Incidentally, there's a Richard III society somewhere ... )
> If he knew what shakespeare had written about him
> he'd probably
by
Anonymous User
-
Ancient History
Poor old richard III
the amount of things they've got wrong about him already are astounding.
If he knew what shakespeare had written about him he'd probably hate him as much as the rest of us that have had to suffer his work
by
marduk
-
Ancient History
I dunno if you get programmes like "War Walks" on TV on your side of the pond but if you do look out for it. It's only 30 minutes but Prof. Richard Holmes is first rate.
John
by
John Wall
-
Ancient History
It sounds as if the real battlefield is very close to the reputed one. Also, some of the seeming history around Richard III is based on Shakespeare's play and has been shown to be quite suspect.
All I know for sure is that Richard III's last stand definitely did not take place on the playing fields of Eton, where Lord Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was won. Lol I'm la
by
Sue
-
Ancient History
With my surname it will probably come as no surprise that I have always been interested in the Battle of Bosworth (they are connected).
I visited the site of the Battlefield on the day of the 500 anniversary in 1985 and with 1,000s of others walked the route of the main events.
Or so I thought...
If they do identify the exact site I suppose I'll have to go back again.
Jon (Bodswo
by
Jon_B
-
Ancient History
My kingdom for a battlefield: researchers to look for the site where Richard III really died
by
Katherine Reece
-
Ancient History
<HTML>My director took a while getting used to the fact that I was going to play Richard III with a Yorkshire dialect. Seemed appropriate...</HTML>
by
Voltaire
-
Ancient History
<HTML> Damn straight! You got your hooks into the King of England, no matter how you did it, your menfolk would be right in there backing you to the hilt. God knows Elizabeth Woodville's were behind her, not to mention Anne Boleyn's, Jane Seymours, Kathering Howards'...</HTML>
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
<HTML>I agree except I would say "probably guilty".
Pierre</HTML>
by
Pacal
-
Ancient History
<HTML>On the other hand, if the Queen's a witch (I seem to recall something about claims that E. Woodville used sorcery to seduce and secure Edward, which has always struck me as indicative of sour grapes, but you never know; people can believe some odd things...and act on them just as if they were fact...), then all the King's family and all the King's men, might not suffice
by
Cicely
-
Ancient History
<HTML>An unambitious one? No, more to the point, what woman's menfolk would be willing to pass up the chance at power and influence?</HTML>
by
Cicely
-
Ancient History
<HTML> It is when you can count on the backing of the rest of the Royal family and the leading peers of the realm - not to mention being the rightful queen! What woman is going to just throw away the crown matrimonial? Not to mention the righteous anger of a woman scorned. Believe me, people opposed kings all the time when their interests were at stake.</HTML>
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
<HTML> Oh is that your problem? Well as it happens I'm inclined to agree that Richard was no worse than others of his time. He had excellent cause to fear for his life under a regime governed by the Woodvilles and once he'd taken the step of displacing his nephews he had little choice but to kill them and there are indications he suffered acute guilt over it. I don't believ
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Sounds like a great set-up for soap operas! :-) He said/she said/they said.....
>If he had actually been precontracted to *anybody* she would most certainly have come forward at that time >and found plentiful supporters.
On the other hand, annoying the King isn't necessarily a healthy choice...</HTML>
by
Cicely
-
Ancient History
<HTML> As a matter of fact no. Which was what made sitting on Church courts so interesting in the Middle Ages. Canonically a legal marriage required nothing but the consent and intent of the parties, witnesses were unecessary. Ditto for a promise to marry, (pre-contract). When both man and woman told the same story there was no problem but when they didn't - hoo boy!
Edward IV
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
<HTML>
> Why did Henry leave it like that? I could speculate that
> Henry thought an investigation would do him more harm than
> good given that he so obviously also benefited from the two
> Princes murder. I also suspect that Henry probably did not
> know for certain what "really" happened to the Princes.
Formal inquiries into the wrongdoings of previous adm
by
Roxana Cooper
-
Ancient History
<HTML><blockquote>Pacal wrote:
>
> Your phrasing would seem to indicate that you have
> accepted the Tudor mythos concerning Richard hook line and
> sinker.
>
> First it was very much in Tudor interest to allege that that
> the illegimacy story was a total crock but if it was why did
> they go to such lengths to supress the Titulus Reglius, so
> that only
by
Pacal
-
Ancient History
<HTML>What Cyn means, I think, is that there was no "formal" or "Official" investigation of any kind performed by Henry and no attempt it appears to find the bodies. In fact all we have are rumours and speculation, some put forward I've no doubt by Tudor propagandists. Also Henry never to the best of our knowledge formally and specifically accussed Richard III of
by
Pacal
-
Ancient History
<HTML>>Eleanor Butler btw had very conveniently died in 1468 and so was unavailable for questioning.
For a legal precontract to apply, wouldn't there need to be witnesses? Or am I thinking in the wrong time and/or legal system?</HTML>
by
Cicely
-
Ancient History