I wish people would stop conflating both legal and illegal immigration as the same thing. You'd have a hard time finding someone against LEGAL immigration.
It depends on whether the legal migrants (if they are not British Hongkongers, say) are filling professional jobs or not. If they are just joining (the) hoi poloi, then they aren't worth having.
a bit disappointing that the talk veered away from the title..death of marlowe to all these other characters..Essex, Lopez etc,. I think the day was spent in plotting Marlowe's getaway since he was basically done for. The amount of Italian plays, 13, which followed his demise speaks to his exit from England plus the fact the plays were studded with clues from Marlowe himself. Oh well, it is what it is.
So much was left out in this video, I thought this would be an in depth analysis of the death of Marlowe. A shame it derailed off topic so soon. Ingram Frizer was supposedly sitting on a bench between Robert Poley and Nicholas Skeres when Marlowe attacked him from behind with a dagger and started pummeling him, but not with the blade. Frizer claimed he was unable to move or defend himself properly as he was seated between the two others... who apparently did nothing. Somehow he was still able to get the blade from Marlowe, who would then have been unarmed, and in this three-to-one scenario Frizer would have been justified to go for the kill and stab him in the eye? Ask the Elizabethan courts and the answer is yes, absolutely. The Queen pardoned Frizer only a month after the murder, which would have been remarkably soon. Afterwards the death of Marlowe was sold to the people as divine retribution for his sins and blasphemy. The dual meaning of "the reckoning" (le recknynge, the bill) was not lost on anyone. The elite wanted Marlowe dead, the murderers knew exactly what they were doing and were sure they would be allowed to get away with it. The other playwrights knew full well at the time that there was much more to the story than the authorities would let on. Yet the atmosphere would have been so oppressive that no one dared utter a word about it. No one except for Shakespeare, who lamented Marlowe's premature and violent demise in "As You Like It" with the ambiguous lines: "When a man's verses cannot be understood nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child, understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room." F
Maybe it’s not being able to see his facial expressions, but there’s a tone of arrogance in the author’s tone that really makes it hard to listen to for too long.
Interesting that in 1593 De Vere, the Earl of Oxford lost his money. The Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare in my opinion and many others contributed, this interview is interesting for colour of the time. SHAKESPEARE was a cover.
He lost his money years before when he sold off all of his revenue-generating properties in the 1570s. By 1586, his situation had become so desperate that the queen had to give him a £1000 pound a year dole, split into quarterly payments so he wouldn't blow through it all. I don't know what source you're consulting for the claim that he only lost his money in 1593, but who or whatever it is shouldn't be trusted.
I wish people would stop conflating both legal and illegal immigration as the same thing. You'd have a hard time finding someone against LEGAL immigration.
It depends on whether the legal migrants (if they are not British Hongkongers, say) are filling professional jobs or not. If they are just joining (the) hoi poloi, then they aren't worth having.
a bit disappointing that the talk veered away from the title..death of marlowe to all these other characters..Essex, Lopez etc,. I think the day was spent in plotting Marlowe's getaway since he was basically done for. The amount of Italian plays, 13, which followed his demise speaks to his exit from England plus the fact the plays were studded with clues from Marlowe himself. Oh well, it is what it is.
So much was left out in this video, I thought this would be an in depth analysis of the death of Marlowe. A shame it derailed off topic so soon.
Ingram Frizer was supposedly sitting on a bench between Robert Poley and Nicholas Skeres when Marlowe attacked him from behind with a dagger and started pummeling him, but not with the blade. Frizer claimed he was unable to move or defend himself properly as he was seated between the two others... who apparently did nothing. Somehow he was still able to get the blade from Marlowe, who would then have been unarmed, and in this three-to-one scenario Frizer would have been justified to go for the kill and stab him in the eye? Ask the Elizabethan courts and the answer is yes, absolutely. The Queen pardoned Frizer only a month after the murder, which would have been remarkably soon.
Afterwards the death of Marlowe was sold to the people as divine retribution for his sins and blasphemy. The dual meaning of "the reckoning" (le recknynge, the bill) was not lost on anyone.
The elite wanted Marlowe dead, the murderers knew exactly what they were doing and were sure they would be allowed to get away with it.
The other playwrights knew full well at the time that there was much more to the story than the authorities would let on. Yet the atmosphere would have been so oppressive that no one dared utter a word about it.
No one except for Shakespeare, who lamented Marlowe's premature and violent demise in "As You Like It" with the ambiguous lines:
"When a man's verses cannot be understood nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child, understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room."
F
Maybe it’s not being able to see his facial expressions, but there’s a tone of arrogance in the author’s tone that really makes it hard to listen to for too long.
Interesting that in 1593 De Vere, the Earl of Oxford lost his money. The Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare in my opinion and many others contributed, this interview is interesting for colour of the time. SHAKESPEARE was a cover.
And you are wrong.
He lost his money years before when he sold off all of his revenue-generating properties in the 1570s. By 1586, his situation had become so desperate that the queen had to give him a £1000 pound a year dole, split into quarterly payments so he wouldn't blow through it all. I don't know what source you're consulting for the claim that he only lost his money in 1593, but who or whatever it is shouldn't be trusted.
Shills.