Shakespeare and the Royals

[Fellow Traveler]

Can any reader think of instances where Shakespeare criticized any Royal English person in power during his writing? Was he ever so bold?

 

[hgc]

Shakespeare worked during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, and didn't write contemporary history. The more relevant question is how he treats the Tudor dynasty, and the relevant plays are Richard III and Henry VIII. You can draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lucian]

If Shakespeare had overtly criticized a reigning monarch in any of his plays, it would not have been approved by the Master of the Revels.

 

[theprestige]

Can any reader think of instances where Shakespeare criticized any Royal English person in power during his writing? Was he ever so bold?

Is it possible that he did so frequently, using previous dynasties as stand-ins?

M.A.S.H. was produced during the Vietnam war, but set in the Korean War. Do you think the writers ever criticized American involvement in Vietnam in the show?

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Is it possible that he did so frequently, using previous dynasties as stand-ins?

M.A.S.H. was produced during the Vietnam war, but set in the Korean War. Do you think the writers ever criticized American involvement in Vietnam in the show?

Yes they criticized the Viet Nam War in about every show. To their credit they made their commentary palatable, usually. I thought the movie was less political.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Following up on the Bible Code and DaVinci Code, someone wrote a book on Shakespeare being a secret Catholic resistance leader and filling his plays and sonnets with coded messages. Author's name was Asquith.

(I'm getting my kid ready for school. I'll see if I can find it later.)

 

[Lucian]

Following up on the Bible Code and DaVinci Code, someone wrote a book on Shakespeare being a secret Catholic resistance leader and filling his plays and sonnets with coded messages. Author's name was Asquith.

(I'm getting my kid ready for school. I'll see if I can find it later.)

Is this the book?

 

[Craig B]

Is this the book?

It hasn't been well received in certain quarters.

Her work was hailed by some, including the Catholic writer Piers Paul Read as "dramatic, important" and "painstaking scholarship". It was, however, reviewed unfavourably by Dr David Womersley, Professor of English Literature at Oxford University, who deemed it "a ridiculous book".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Asquith On the whole I tend to the view that conspiracy theories about Shakespeare are all nonsense.

 

[Lucian]

It hasn't been well received in certain quarters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Asquith On the whole I tend to the view that conspiracy theories about Shakespeare are all nonsense.

My feeling is that anyone who reads Shakespeare looking for a secret code should be ignored. Of course, there may be political commentary, and that commentary may be subtle or ambiguous. The idea that Shakespeare may have been a Catholic sympathizer, if not a recusant, isn't new. But Asquith seems to be claiming that Shakespeare was using cyphers and that references to storms and tempests actually refer to religious struggles. I don't trust anyone who is happy to assume that Shakespeare's artistry is somehow an afterthought to some complicated coded message.

 

[Slowvehicle]

According to one poster here, "Shakespeare" was a Royal (Elizabeth R).

 

[Craig4]

Shakespeare worked during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, and didn't write contemporary history. The more relevant question is how he treats the Tudor dynasty, and the relevant plays are Richard III and Henry VIII. You can draw your own conclusions.

Richard III certainly comes off as an ambivalent character.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Is this the book?

It hasn't been well received in certain quarters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Asquith On the whole I tend to the view that conspiracy theories about Shakespeare are all nonsense.

My feeling is that anyone who reads Shakespeare looking for a secret code should be ignored. Of course, there may be political commentary, and that commentary may be subtle or ambiguous. The idea that Shakespeare may have been a Catholic sympathizer, if not a recusant, isn't new. But Asquith seems to be claiming that Shakespeare was using cyphers and that references to storms and tempests actually refer to religious struggles. I don't trust anyone who is happy to assume that Shakespeare's artistry is somehow an afterthought to some complicated coded message.

Yeah, that's the book. I have to say I never read it. I just thought the timing was funny 'cuz folks like us on these forums were busy picking apart the Bible Code and DaVinci Code and showing that you could take any damned fool of a book (and both of those qualify) and put numbers to it and sooner or later find forty or fifty pages that elicited Nostradamus-like messages. I read an interview with her in a legit journal that was a beautiful example of a great "give-em-enough-rope" journalism. The reporter didn't have to do anything but quote her breathless hyping of her theory...which is based on the a priori assumption that Shakespeare was Catholic. If she started from there, with all the weakness in that argument, her Code is based on a very weak foundation.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Shakespear operated in a time ehen open critique of the throne was illegal, but his veiled satire and topical jokes are in there.

Lots of sefret subtexts have been read into the works suggesting he were gay, straight, a woman, a royal, a sailor and syphalitic. All any of them really suggest is he had a talent for writing from the point of view of others with a convincing style. That even small roles are well formed.

Alas all his true identities are yarns imposed on they grey areas we don't know of the man based on wishful thinking.

 

[timhau]

I'm sure he would have criticized the Royals, if he'd been playing for the Yankees.

 

[lobosrul]

Is it possible that he did so frequently, using previous dynasties as stand-ins?

M.A.S.H. was produced during the Vietnam war, but set in the Korean War. Do you think the writers ever criticized American involvement in Vietnam in the show?

It was only kinda sorta produced during the Vietnam War. The show premiered in Sept 1972, when we were clearly on our way out of Vietnam. US troop numbers were only a small fraction of what they had been, and the peace agreement was signed just a month later. The show ran until 1983 (8 years after the fall of Saigon). Yes it was certainly critical of the Vietnam war. However, once Alan Alda gained control (around 1976) it commonly became a soap box for any political or social issue he wanted to bring up.

TLDR: the show became much more political after the Vietnam war was completely over.

 

[theprestige]

It was only kinda sorta produced during the Vietnam War. The show premiered in Sept 1972, when we were clearly on our way out of Vietnam. US troop numbers were only a small fraction of what they had been, and the peace agreement was signed just a month later. The show ran until 1983 (8 years after the fall of Saigon). Yes it was certainly critical of the Vietnam war. However, once Alan Alda gained control (around 1976) it commonly became a soap box for any political or social issue he wanted to bring up.

TLDR: the show became much more political after the Vietnam war was completely over.

Agreed. However, it was always ostensibly set in Korea during the Korean War. Thus, by analogy, it's not necessary for Shakespeare to have used contemporary settings and characters in order to offer contemporary social commentary.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

WS lived a long time for those days, unlike political activists.

 

[Foolmewunz]

WS lived a long time for those days, unlike political activists.

How do you reconcile that idea with the life of Ben Jonson? Jonson was far more political, locked horns with the Royals a few times and spent a few spells in gaol. Yet, in terms of longevity, he lived longer than Shakespeare?

 

[Senex]

I've previously posted about the Hamlet simulcast live from the National Theatre. I have recently watched King Lear simulcast from the National Theatre last week. I notice royal families are dysfunctional in Shakespeare. I also notice that Shakespeare transcends brilliant/genius/gifted. No one else writes the best thing out there after hundreds of years. King Lear in the second act reminded me of my dad who had Alzheimers for ten years. I bet the play is personal to every person who watches it on some level. Shakespeare falls into a unique category of brilliance.

If royal people think they are special -- well yes, they are especially dysfunctional.

 

[theprestige]

WS lived a long time for those days, unlike political activists.

Evidence?