WAS SHAKESPEARE A TUDOR PROPAGANDIST?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Did Shakespeare paint Richard III as a villainous tyrant for the sake of Tudor propaganda? 🤔 Dive into the historical and literary analysis of Shakespeare's Richard III and discover the truth behind one of literature's most infamous characters. 📚🎭
Join us as we unravel the mysteries of Shakespeare's intent and the political pressures of his time. Was he a brilliant playwright or a cunning propagandist? Find out now! 🔍
Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more deep dives into literary history and Shakespearean analysis! 📽️✨
If Shakespeare had NOT been pro-Tudor you would not know his name. People come on. Ever read or watched "The Isle of Dogs" from that time? No, no one has. It was banned and destroyed: Ben Jonson almost lost his life over it; many playrights spent time in the Tower for satirizing things things not showing the Court in a good light.
Lol, the notification I got for this just said "WAS SHAKESPEARE A TUDOR". And I was like "well, that's a new one".
😂😂😂 I wish I'd actually thought of that title.
I think shake-speare enjoyed stirring the pot, because he was protected by his pseudonym.
@@Witsend-kx4ub How was he protected? Do you think the guy who was supposedly putting his name on the plays wouldn't give him up in about three seconds?
@@jeffmeade8643 Edward de Vere was the Earl of Oxford and frequented the court of Queen Elizabeth. John Dee was the founder of the secret service and friend of Edward de Vere. Dee knew who Shakespeare was! Alexander Waugh has a lot of interesting research on this. The bloodlines have always had a great deal of societal influence and yet the vast majority of the population don’t even realise who they are.
Thank you, Tristan. What a fabulous video. I've often wondered if Shakespeare was ever frightened when a new play was opening, the law being so harsh, and the punishments so horrific.
I think you're spot on about Richard being an interesting villain and outshining all the good guys. 😊
It should also be note that Richard was more sympathetic in Shakespeare's earlier histories about Henry VI. He becomes disillusioned and evil as time goes on across more than the one play named for him. And of course the bottom line is that he had a duty of care for his nephews which he failed apparently as you pointed out. Fun fact: When John Barymore was playing Richard there was a drunk in the audience who laughed uproariously at the "A horse" line (which actors were dreading by then because of its fame on top of having to repeat the line). When Barymore got to the third and last repition of the line, he turned in the direction of the unruly drunk, pointed towards him and intoned grandly, 'Saddle yon brayong ass!"
You have such a gift for making a complicated topic easier to understand! Richard is an easy character to romanticize and I loved how you made him more human and therefore relatable.
I am just starting a biography of Richard III, it’s in French, written by a very well known historian, specialised in the middle ages. I promise to let you know about what I will learn about Richard ! The title is ” Richard III, a cursed king?”. Do mark the question mark😅. Thank you for your vidéos I always learn a lot
The book by Georges Minois ?
Yes indeed!
Tristan. First and foremost: you are a star I and just do not believe you took so much time and effort to answer a brief and not very well thought through comment.. Thank you so much and as always, you have just made a most brilliant lecture and I enjoyed it to the full! I always do.
I do need to point something out anyway :-) please forgive me. Now that you made me feel as we are actually having a discussion, I feel a bit justified to write :-)
There are some evidence that the late king Edward IV was actually a bastard, an archer's son, and probably Richard knew that he actually was the last true Plantagenet. That is why he made sure the princes in the Tower would never go to public again, whether we believe the murder story or the other one (I have read an article that they were actually transported secretly out of England, so that not to mess with the monarchy line issue any more).
The other thing is: Henry VII was a usurper, at least as far as I understand the primogeniture and the crown passing-on-business :-) so he absolutely NEEDED, perhaps desperately (some sources also say he was quite paranoid) to justify his seizure of the crown. If he was not "legitimate" king, nor was his son, and Elizabeth so much less so. Well, I can only imagine every king/queen wanted to be regarded as "God anointed" in the medieval world. Even if they hardly were (and who wasn't? :->) I also read somewhere that the treason on the battlefield had been orchestrated by the mother of Henry VII.
The scoliosis - I need to add that I heard a pathologist say, It actually would not be visible with clothes on and Richard could actually wear the armour, which would be impossible otherwise. And I also heard some art historian pointing out that the hunch on the portrait was actually added a few years after it had been painted.
And the last thing about villains and honour: I remember this quote from Indiana Jones, paraphrasing (comeon now, I know we are talking serious business here, but let me loosen up the atmosphere a bit :-) "In archaeology we look for facts, not truth. If you are looking for truth, perhaps you should consider taking the philosophy course". I am looking for facts, and than - I know full well, we will never get all of them, just look on the today world: depending on who you talk to, you can get a totally different impression of what's going on - I find myself, quite surprised, to be looking for truth, which was never my intention in the first place. Richard was immortalised, as you said, in a "black" way and maybe it was a huge injustice made to him. And that is the winners that write the history, so we actually are not to know the facts, let alone the truth. However I must say I just loved your take on it. I loved what you said about Shakespeare painting his characters and putting a bit more and a bit less of life and charisma in them. And you know, you have just made me want to get this tome of his out of the bookshelf again.
And yeas, please do make a lecture on Shakespeare being a racist :-) It actually never occurred to me, (perhaps I have read to few of his works :-)) but I still would love to listen to what is your opinion on this. I would also very very much love to hear what you think on Tolkien's opinion on Shakespeare :-)
Thank you again. You make me crave reading and digging deep.
Best wishes! Kath
PS. What a story about those notes stuck in books in library! I would have never thought of this, I must consider it the next time I go to my local library :-D What a story!
I really love your videos. I’m 12 and studying for my Shakespeare level 3 LAMDA exam. I have to choose a speech so would love to see you explain any of these:
- I know thee not old man… from Henry IV part 2
- Give me another horse! bind up my wounds… Richard III
- Look upon this picture, and on this…. Hamlet
- If it were done, when ‘‘tis done, then there well it were done quickly… Macbeth
It's wonderful to hear you taking Shakespeare so earnestly. I will see what I can do about one of those speeches. Do you have a favourite.
@@tristanandtheclassics6538 I like the Henry IV speech
Now, more than ever, people "learn history" through the media. Rest assured, if you watch a Hollywood movie about a historic event, it is 99% not just fictional, but intentionally incorrect.
Tristam i know this request doesn't sit well here , anyway can u make a video on poetry, how to approach it, where to start .
Very interesting subject. I stand with you that there is never one side that is correct and one that is wrong. History is not black and white but mostly grey. I do have a question. The Princes in the tower were Edward age 12 and Richard age 9. They were not twins. You spoke several time of the twins. Who are they?
Yes I did mention twins, and you are right they are nor twins at all. There's two children. I cannot understand why I got stuck on twins.😅
Thankyou for this very informative tutorial. Your explanation was clear and unbiased and put all parts of the subject into perspective. I enjoyed it immensely.
Very interesting. I never knew feelings ran so strongly 😊😊
Shakespeare knew what side his bread was buttered on. No matter what he may have believed personally, he wrote plays that would be popular with the people at the time and that wouldn’t have got him into trouble with the authorities. It was both fashionable and safe to present Richard in a bad light. Richard may very well have been a ‘good’ king, but he did what he had to do, both for his brother Edward IV and as king himself. That’s why the kings in those days set up chantries to pray for them after they died. They knew they were serious sinners but being king meant you had to do some bad things.
Thank you, Tristan, for such a balanced and sensible video. You have taken into account the (sometimes ignored by the Ricardians) fact that people were different 600 years ago, and would behave in ways that would horrify us today because might equalled right. Everybody was out to get the most power they could, and both Richard and Henry were no different.
Characters in the murder mystery genre often talk about "means, motive, and opportunity," to commit a murder, and Richard had all three.
But I think that's an oversimplification of real life, because someone could have all three and be innocent.
35:53 There were censors in Tudor times, and the theatre was not exempt. I used to belong to the Richard III Society. They're right in that he was very popular in the North when he was in power up there. However, the nephews in the Tower is still problematic. Some of the members believe Richard would never do any wrong, however the medieval elite were violent, self willed and trained from youth to be so. Why would Richard be a saint, and we don't know what he was like a person. You can only judge by his actions, I think it's an open case and is likely to remain so.
As for Shakespeare, yes he pandered to the Court, but his plays are great and very advanced for his tales. If he hadn't towed the line politically, he'd have been executed. Mostly Shakespeare presents a case and lets you decide for yourself. I think Shakespeare drew a good picture of Richard within the parameters of the society he had to live in. I agree with Tristan, Richard was probably neither devil nor Saint.
Hullo Tristan hope your well. Had to suggest George Gissing the Nether world. It's brilliant and George Gissing deserves to be resurrected as a popular author. Peace Lara.
Firstly people can’t make judgements about personality of people without a thorough understanding of the period of time and the circumstances of the person in particular, whether WS or king Richard; secondly, the heats are plays, not historical facts.
Those paper slip folks have a little too much time on their hands lol
Didn't one need permission from the crown to even put on a play?
There is a documentary by and with Al Pacino called "Looking for Richard". Have you seen it? I saw it a long time ago and thought maybe you would enjoy it. I did. 🎥
9:44 i just finished watching a 2 season tv show, and read wikipedia of catherine of aragon, the main character in the show, henry the vii was not that awful in the show, more awful than him was his son, the successor to the throne; which shows a bitter rivalry between tudors in power and yorks propped by france to get in power. the show was interesting
Excellent video.
Wasn't this the Lord Stanley who married Margaret Beaufort and therefore might have supported Henry VII?
Yes which is why Richard was also probably suspicious about his loyalty
Thanks Tristan, so important to give this balanced context to both the history and the environment of censorship in Elizabeth and Jacobean theatre. Shakespeare was not presenting history, he was creating and exploring the charasmatic machiavellian figure. And there are times where Shakespeare also firmly has his tongue in his cheek: was ever woman in this humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won? It's almost a nod and a wink from Shakespeare that this is a characterisation. I also share your thoughts Tristan on Richard's isolation- even his own mother despises him. There is that incredible soliloquy at the end of Henry VI part 3 where Richard says, I am myself alone, is actually heart-rending, particularly when well acted - the play was, after all, originally entitled the 'Tragedy' of Richard III.
Fantastic video Tristan, you raise some thought provoking ideas. Richard is probably my second favourite Shakespeare villain after Iago and I have often thought that Shakespeare did a wonderful job in creating an anti-hero in Richard. Would very much look forward to your proposed video “WS Shakespeare raciest” keep up the awesome work 😀
Hello Tristan. Let me start by saying that I enjoy each and every one of your videos. However, this time you confuse me a little. You keep talking about 'the twins in the tower', but according to my history books, they were aged 12 and 9 respectively when they were lodged in the tower by their uncle. It does take some of the sheen off your commentaries.
You are absolutely right. I was thinking of the 'two' boys in the tower and started saying twins. I've read a lot about the Wars of the Roses; visited many places related to it; written about it (not academically); and so I don't know what aberration happened here to cause me to keep saying twins. Do you think I should redo the video. It must be distracting.
@@tristanandtheclassics6538this is an excellent video--despite the fact that I am an Oxfordian.
In my opinion it would be totally unfair to dismiss Shakespeare because he had to conform to the politics of the time. I think he did a brilliant job of appearing to appease the powers that be while subtly applauding the villain. In earlier plays he gets round the problem by setting his plays in other countries to avoid offending the English rulers.
Richard III is one of my favourite plays and no 1 of the history plays because he’s such a charismatic villain. I’m sure he would lend anyone a cup of sugar if it suited his purpose.
Very balanced account. Thank you.
First, love the deconstructing of the logic you perform here. Still, I hate any question who puts authors in the middle. It is the narrative not the author and author’s are not only bound by words and the constructions thereof but of the narrative type they are working. So the narrative could be whatever but not an author unless you actually asked the author at the time and then does it matter if you have the evidence against…Also, about the claim about racism, certainly with Othello the claim is made that the representation of Othello by the characters carries the prejudice of its time. I say nothing of Shakespeare.
I love Richard III. I am one of the ones who has been seduced by him. I even try and remember his insults, lol. Love your videos about him. ❤❤❤❤❤❤. I would love him to lend me a cup of sugar. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Are we now going to cancel Shakespeare? Over 400 year old politicians
Is it cancelling someone if you critique their politics?
@@Barklord no