A Very Un-British Feeling

 

I’m proud of my country. Not in the Michelle Obama “first-time” sense, but one which, for once, I’m comfortable “sharing” (as the abominable Markle might put it).

My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

Not to mention the Paddington Bear skit. Can’t help thinking that stand-up comedy lost a master of comedic timing and delivery the moment Elizabeth inherited the throne:

Would that the 17-years-younger President of the United States were able to remember his lines and deliver them so perfectly, even with the aid of a TelePrompTer and when faced with real opposition, adversaries, or interlocutors. Never mind in a situation where he’s dealing with an imaginary green-screened CGI puppet. (At one point in today’s pageant, a hologram of 26-year-old Elizabeth appeared inside the gold Coronation State Coach. Just a thought, Joe Biden’s handlers, just a thought….).

Hologram of Queen in carriage.

At the risk of triggering all you anti-monarchical folks (you know who you are–and I probably do too), I stand with Mark Steyn, who comes firmly down on the side of a constitutional monarchy as an excellent form of government. In a recent conversation, Mark commented on the difference between the Royal Family (THE royal family) and the US President, pointing out that the Queen (THE queen) got stuck in traffic (because no special arrangements are made for the monarch’s travel), and arrived late on her way to Buckingham Palace the other day, remarking that such a thing would never happen in the United States because–prior to the President’s appearance at any local event–all the roads would be closed for his 45-85 car motorcade, and the citizens of the republic would simply have to deal with the indignity of their own needs counting for nothing while their betters sailed along.

Can’t argue with that. ‘Cause he’s right.

Plus. And (as the late Mr. She might have said): The entire Jubilee spectacle was a massive middle-finger-in-the-eye to the Covid hysterics.

So, there’s that.  God Save the Queen!

Image:

PS: Full disclosure: Mum and Dad met the Queen and Philip on their 1956 tour of Nigeria. Dad’s favorite recollection is that of the Queen (THE queen), after a very long day, kicking back in a lounge chair in the Kaduna Catering Rest House, closing her eyes, and announcing “Cor, it’s nice to put yer pins up.” (Translation: “Lord, it is lovely to put one’s feet up on an elevated platform after such a day.”)

Haven’t we all felt that way, at least once in our lives?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 125 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Yes, there is something to that, if you look at it in terms of linguistic history and the generally accepted view that US English–especially in the eastern half of the country–reflects an earlier version of British English.

     

    • #61
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    She (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Yes, there is something to that, if you look at it in terms of linguistic history and the generally accepted view that US English–especially in the eastern half of the country–reflects an earlier version of British English.

     

    And the position taken by Washington and his cohort that they were British subjects unduly deprived of their rights as such.  They rejected the proposition that subjects who colonized under the Crown were thereby no longer worthy of subjection!

    • #62
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    She (View Comment):
    We’ve chopped off King’s heads before, amirite?

    Still sensitive about that.

    • #63
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    She (View Comment):
    For example, a king who had only daughters while there were other potential male heirs in the mix insured that none of them would inherit, and that his brother/son/cousin/whatever who actually produced a male, would take precedence.

    About the only one I can think of in that situation was Matilda/Maud, whose cousin Stephen of Blois took over, creating the Anarchy. England/Great Britain/the UK never went by Salic Law. Elizabeth II had living uncles and male cousins (and still has male-line cousins). Dear Old Vicky had male-line uncles and cousins. Her male-line relatives are still around today.

    • #64
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Arahant (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):
    For example, a king who had only daughters while there were other potential male heirs in the mix insured that none of them would inherit, and that his brother/son/cousin/whatever who actually produced a male, would take precedence.

    About the only one I can think of in that situation was Matilda/Maud, whose cousin Stephen of Blois took over, creating the Anarchy. England/Great Britain/the UK never went by Salic Law. Elizabeth II had living uncles and male cousins (and still has male-line cousins). Dear Old Vicky had male-line uncles and cousins. Her male-line relatives are still around today.

    I’ve never heard Victoria referred to as “Vicky”.

    • #65
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    BDB (View Comment):
    I’ve never heard Victoria referred to as “Vicky”.

    Ah, laddie, if ye’d known her as I knew her.

    • #66
  7. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Arahant (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    I’ve never heard Victoria referred to as “Vicky”.

    Ah, laddie, if ye’d known her as I knew her.

    Whatever, Arya.

    • #67
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    BDB (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):
    For example, a king who had only daughters while there were other potential male heirs in the mix insured that none of them would inherit, and that his brother/son/cousin/whatever who actually produced a male, would take precedence.

    About the only one I can think of in that situation was Matilda/Maud, whose cousin Stephen of Blois took over, creating the Anarchy. England/Great Britain/the UK never went by Salic Law. Elizabeth II had living uncles and male cousins (and still has male-line cousins). Dear Old Vicky had male-line uncles and cousins. Her male-line relatives are still around today.

    I’ve never heard Victoria referred to as “Vicky”.

    You’ve probably never heard me referring to King Arthur as “Artie” either.

    • #68
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Percival (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):
    For example, a king who had only daughters while there were other potential male heirs in the mix insured that none of them would inherit, and that his brother/son/cousin/whatever who actually produced a male, would take precedence.

    About the only one I can think of in that situation was Matilda/Maud, whose cousin Stephen of Blois took over, creating the Anarchy. England/Great Britain/the UK never went by Salic Law. Elizabeth II had living uncles and male cousins (and still has male-line cousins). Dear Old Vicky had male-line uncles and cousins. Her male-line relatives are still around today.

    I’ve never heard Victoria referred to as “Vicky”.

    You’ve probably never heard me referring to King Arthur as “Artie” either.

    Funny that.

    • #69
  10. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    She: My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

    Sounds fine to me, but then I really like the Last Night of the Proms too.

    • #70
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Percival (View Comment):

    She: My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

    Sounds fine to me, but then I really like the Last Night of the Proms too.

    “Rule, Britannia!” 

    “Jerusalem.”

    “God Save the Queen.”

    All with the audiences in various locales singing along, waving Union Jacks, 5 sheets to the wind. What’s not to like?

    • #71
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Percival (View Comment):

    She: My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

    Sounds fine to me, but then I really like the Last Night of the Proms too.

    I love it too. 

    • #72
  13. She Member
    She
    @She

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    She: My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

    Sounds fine to me, but then I really like the Last Night of the Proms too.

    I love it too.

    Me three! My very early LNOTP experiences were with Malcolm Sargent and Joan Sutherland, in granny’s living room, on her very tiny black and white TV, accompanied by cups of tea, cucumber, and fish paste sandwiches, and Dundee cake. The event has loosened up considerably since then, but it was fun then too.

    • #73
  14. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    She (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    She: My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.

    Sounds fine to me, but then I really like the Last Night of the Proms too.

    I love it too.

    Me three! My very early LNOTP experiences were with Malcolm Sargent and Joan Sutherland, in granny’s living room, on her very tiny black and white TV, accompanied by cups of tea, cucumber, and fish paste sandwiches, and Dundee cake. The event has loosened up considerably since then, but it was fun then too.

    I would love to know more about music education in England. I wish my fellow churchgoers could sing in tune. :) :) 

    • #74
  15. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Actually that is more accurate! And from what I read American English was closer to the English of pre New World discovery than the English of today’s England. 

    • #75
  16. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    Can you explain to me what exactly she does in government and legislation that has any impact other than being a figurehead?

    Firstly, her position as a figurehead is far more important than you imply.

    She is the head of what might arguably be called the world’s best PR firm. Wherever she appears you can be sure every appropriate business in town proudly displays goods made in the UK. Her presence should not be underestimated.

    She heads a commonwealth of 50 some countries that are visited by either she or members of her family and which means her small island nation continues as a player on the world stage. Maintaining the commonwealth is no small thing requiring invitations to elaborate state dinners at Windsor or Buckingham Palace and hours of conferences with the government of which she is the figurehead.

    While she certainly doesn’t actually choose the prime minister, the little ceremony requiring his/her presence at the palace after his party receives the necessary votes in parliament recognizes his authority with the people.

    Billions of dollars go into the treasury each year from tourists who are drawn to visit her palaces full of priceless art, antiques and other reminders of the long history of royalty still very much alive today.

    I could go on and on, but you might get the idea from the few examples above.

    Would you advocate the United States go to a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead king or queen?  Yes or no. No mealy mouthed rhetoric that qualifies the answer. ;)

    • #76
  17. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Manny (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Actually that is more accurate! And from what I read American English was closer to the English of pre New World discovery than the English of today’s England.

    Which is why we must periodically re-train our Limey kin in the proper use of the language.

    • #77
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Actually that is more accurate! And from what I read American English was closer to the English of pre New World discovery than the English of today’s England.

    Which is why we must periodically re-train our Limey kin in the proper use of the language.

    https://youtu.be/ScELaXMCVis

    https://youtu.be/WjTIFkWJctY

    Good luck with that.

    (And, from my around own neck of the woods:)

    • #78
  19. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    She (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Actually that is more accurate! And from what I read American English was closer to the English of pre New World discovery than the English of today’s England.

    Which is why we must periodically re-train our Limey kin in the proper use of the language.

     

    Good luck with that.

    Not everybody will make it.

    • #79
  20. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Manny (View Comment):
    Would you advocate the United States go to a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead king or queen?  Yes or no. No mealy mouthed rhetoric that qualifies the answer. ;)

    I wouldn’t advocate it for today. That ship sailed in 1787 when the US Constitution was signed. Although George Washington was offered to be king and refused, it should be noted that there was political thirst for a monarchy at the time. Monarchs must be above the political fray, born of a long and continuing line, not elected.

    What we have done with the presidency is combine the combative nature of a politician with the trappings and duties of a king. It takes a very rare individual who is capable of shedding his party loyalty once he assumes the power of the White House. It took the British a long time to get it right too as Charlies I would undoubtedly testify. We’re still a work in progress.

    • #80
  21. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    She (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    They gave us a wonderful language

    I prefer to say “We retained…”

    Actually that is more accurate! And from what I read American English was closer to the English of pre New World discovery than the English of today’s England.

    Which is why we must periodically re-train our Limey kin in the proper use of the language.

    https://youtu.be/ScELaXMCVis

    https://youtu.be/WjTIFkWJctY

    Good luck with that.

    (And, from my around own neck of the woods:)

    Scottish accents are of a completely different world.  It seems like a different language.  My one time in Scotland, I couldn’t understand a word.  

    • #81
  22. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    Would you advocate the United States go to a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead king or queen? Yes or no. No mealy mouthed rhetoric that qualifies the answer. ;)

    I wouldn’t advocate it for today. That ship sailed in 1787 when the US Constitution was signed. Although George Washington was offered to be king and refused, it should be noted that there was political thirst for a monarchy at the time. Monarchs must be above the political fray, born of a long and continuing line, not elected.

    What we have done with the presidency is combine the combative nature of a politician with the trappings and duties of a king. It takes a very rare individual who is capable of shedding his party loyalty once he assumes the power of the White House. It took the British a long time to get it right too as Charlies I would undoubtedly testify. We’re still a work in progress.

    OK.  I would have been stunned if you said yes.  ;)  

    • #82
  23. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    She (View Comment):

    The English Civil War was about much more than religion, and was precipitated by the Stuart’s adherence to the idea that they ruled by Divine Right with absolute power. As with previous skirmishes in the same arena, Parliament wasn’t so on board with it, and the result was inevitable, given the singlemindedness of the parliamentarian leader Oliver Cromwell. Also given his brutal, authoritarian regime during England’s foray into “republicanism,” it’s hardly surprising that–only slightly more than ten years after he assumed absolute power and after his death from malaria–Cromwell’s son Richard resigned, ending the Protectorate and events were set in motion which resulted in the restoration of King Charles II.

    William Shakespeare was a creature of (Queen) Elizabeth I. During the (republican) reign of Oliver Cromwell, and for a few years following, all theaters were closed in the interests of preventing public disorder and “lascivious mirth and levity.” That would have included all Shakespeare performances.

    That’s not my perception of the English Civil War.  From what I think I’ve read, the Civil War would not have happened if Charles were not a Catholic sympathizing king.  After all, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and James I were monarchs under the same parliament just a few years prior and they were accepted.  But I’ll defer to you on this.  But I would double check it if I were you.

    Shakespeare absolutely despised the Puritans.  He was at a minimum High Church Anglican but there is ample evidence to suggest he was outright Catholic.  There are at least three characters in his plays who were based on Puritans: Malvolio from Twelfth Night, Jaques from As You Like It, and Shylock from The Merchant of Venice.  Malvolio actually translates into “ill will”.  Jaques was a downer of a pill.  And we know Shylock.  Some critics have shown that the language associated with Shylock was the very same cast on the Puritans in Shakespeare’s day.  Shakespeare actually never knew any Jews.  There are some who posit that The Merchant of Venice was an indirect way of attacking the Puritans.

    • #83
  24. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

     

    • #84
  25. She Member
    She
    @She

    Manny (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    The English Civil War was about much more than religion, and was precipitated by the Stuart’s adherence to the idea that they ruled by Divine Right with absolute power. As with previous skirmishes in the same arena, Parliament wasn’t so on board with it, and the result was inevitable, given the singlemindedness of the parliamentarian leader Oliver Cromwell. Also given his brutal, authoritarian regime during England’s foray into “republicanism,” it’s hardly surprising that–only slightly more than ten years after he assumed absolute power and after his death from malaria–Cromwell’s son Richard resigned, ending the Protectorate and events were set in motion which resulted in the restoration of King Charles II.

    William Shakespeare was a creature of (Queen) Elizabeth I. During the (republican) reign of Oliver Cromwell, and for a few years following, all theaters were closed in the interests of preventing public disorder and “lascivious mirth and levity.” That would have included all Shakespeare performances.

    That’s not my perception of the English Civil War. From what I think I’ve read, the Civil War would not have happened if Charles were not a Catholic sympathizing king. After all, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and James I were monarchs under the same parliament just a few years prior and they were accepted. But I’ll defer to you on this. But I would double check it if I were you.

    Thanks. No need to check my English Civil War privilege. There is a wide gulf between saying “the English Civil War was about much more than religion,”something I did say, and “the English Civil War was not about religion at all,” which I did not say. While there was considerable anti-Catholic sentiment in England at the time stemming from the excellent public relations campaign of Henry VIII, and the brutal and joyless reign of his elder daughter,  Bloody Mary, it was not the precipitating cause of the Civil War. There are innumerable books and documentaries on the subject, but the best précis I could find on short notice is this one, which covers most of the matter and generally trends in the right direction. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1939/causes-of-the-english-civil-wars/

    Shakespeare absolutely despised the Puritans. He was at a minimum High Church Anglican but there is ample evidence to suggest he was outright Catholic. There are at least three characters in his plays who were based on Puritans: Malvolio from Twelfth Night, Jaques from As You Like It, and Shylock from The Merchant of Venice. Malvolio actually translates into “ill will”. Jaques was a downer of a pill. And we know Shylock. Some critics have shown that the language associated with Shylock was the very same cast on the Puritans in Shakespeare’s day. Shakespeare actually never knew any Jews. There are some who posit that The Merchant of Venice was an indirect way of attacking the Puritans.

    Shakespeare was a creature of Elizabeth I, and dependent on her patronage for his success so it’s hardly surprising oeuvre favors his favorite Queen. And I think it’s probably true to say that he did not favor the Puritans who, after all, were intent on cancelling him by closing down the theaters and short-circuiting his ability to make a living, something else which likely colored his opinion.

    While it’s quite easy, and very tempting, to write and believe in history which scratches a particular itch, grinds a  particular ax, or rides a particular hobby horse off into the sunset, a deeper dive will generally show there’s much more to the story, which is why we should view historical accounts which propose monolithic causes for significant historical events with skepticism until we’ve done a bit more research, whether dealing with the English Civil War, the American Civil War, Shakespeare, anything written by Howard Zinn, or the 1619 Project.

    The thought that, 200 years from now, people might be citing those last two as unequivocal examples of historical accuracy is dispiriting to say the least.

    • #85
  26. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    She (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Shakespeare absolutely despised the Puritans. He was at a minimum High Church Anglican but there is ample evidence to suggest he was outright Catholic. There are at least three characters in his plays who were based on Puritans: Malvolio from Twelfth Night, Jaques from As You Like It, and Shylock from The Merchant of Venice. Malvolio actually translates into “ill will”. Jaques was a downer of a pill. And we know Shylock. Some critics have shown that the language associated with Shylock was the very same cast on the Puritans in Shakespeare’s day. Shakespeare actually never knew any Jews. There are some who posit that The Merchant of Venice was an indirect way of attacking the Puritans.

    Shakespeare was a creature of Elizabeth I, and dependent on her patronage for his success so it’s hardly surprising oeuvre favors his favorite Queen. And I think it’s probably true to say that he did not favor the Puritans who, after all, were intent on cancelling him by closing down the theaters and short-circuiting his ability to make a living, something else which likely colored his opinion.

    While it’s quite easy, and very tempting, to write and believe in history which scratches a particular itch, grinds a particular ax, or rides a particular hobby horse off into the sunset, a deeper dive will generally show there’s much more to the story, which is why we should view historical accounts which propose monolithic causes for significant historical events with skepticism until we’ve done a bit more research, whether dealing with the English Civil War, the American Civil War, Shakespeare, anything written by Howard Zinn, or the 1619 Project.

    The thought that, 200 years from now, people might be citing those last two as unequivocal examples of historical accuracy is dispiriting to say the least.

    I naturally view the first two English Civil Wars through the natural lens of the Soviets’ drive for a warm-water port.

    • #86
  27. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Manny (View Comment):
    Scottish accents are of a completely different world.  It seems like a different language.

    Some consider Scots a different sister language, rather than dialects of English. Or as Wikipedia says:

    Modern Scots is a sister language of Modern English, as the two diverged independently from the same source: Early Middle English (1150–1300).

    • #87
  28. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    Scottish accents are of a completely different world. It seems like a different language.

    Some consider Scots a different sister language, rather than dialects of English. Or as Wikipedia says:

    Modern Scots is a sister language of Modern English, as the two diverged independently from the same source: Early Middle English (1150–1300).

    https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/scots-gaelic-word-for-bbad8505b87db244f8663a9c9b73ed04edc9ed4b.html

     

    • #88
  29. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    She (View Comment):
    Shakespeare was a creature of Elizabeth I, and dependent on her patronage for his success so it’s hardly surprising oeuvre favors his favorite Queen.

    I’ll defer to you on the history of the English Civil War, but I can’t defer to you on that.  It’s factually wrong.  I’m not sure what it means to be a “creature of Elizabeth I” but Shakespeare was most definitely not under her patronage as you can read here.  His patron was Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, who came from a staunch Catholic family, another reason why the speculation of Shakespeare’s Catholicism.  If you want to read a wonderful book on the evidence for Shakespeare’s Catholicism (there’s no smoking gun evidence of it, but quite an accumulation of suggestions), I highly recommend Joseph Pearce’s The Quest for Shakespeare.  Pearce is a British literary critic who has a passion for his British heritage, though he’s immigrated to the US.

    • #89
  30. She Member
    She
    @She

    Manny (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):
    Shakespeare was a creature of Elizabeth I, and dependent on her patronage for his success so it’s hardly surprising oeuvre favors his favorite Queen.

    I’ll defer to you on the history of the English Civil War, but I can’t defer to you on that. It’s factually wrong. I’m not sure what it means to be a “creature of Elizabeth I” but Shakespeare was most definitely not under her patronage as you can read here. His patron was Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, who came from a staunch Catholic family, another reason why the speculation of Shakespeare’s Catholicism. If you want to read a wonderful book on the evidence for Shakespeare’s Catholicism (there’s no smoking gun evidence of it, but quite an accumulation of suggestions),

    As with many things Shakespeare, including even the spelling of his name and the authorship of his plays, there are many theories on that, but let’s say you’re right for the sake of this conversation.  Perhaps it is truer to say that Shakespeare was a creature of the Tudor monarchs (of which Elizabeth was one), and that’s why his histories unequivocally favored and furthered their mythologization of English history, as far back as the Wars of the Roses.  (Not the Michael Douglas/Kathleen Turner film, but THE Wars of the Roses.)  An excellent book (detective novel, stuffed with facts), is The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey.  (A more romanticized (but still pretty historically accurate) story of the times is Rosemary Hawley Jarman’s “We Speak No Treason.”  Sharon Kay Penman (an American) pretty much owns this period from the reasonably accurate historical novel perspective with The Sunne in Splendour, and following novels.  All of them are excellent reading, if you’re interested in a different perspective on the hunchback Richard and the princes in the tower.)

    As James Patterson Beymer, a beloved university teacher of mine used to say, “Henry VII’s claim to the throne wasn’t exactly ‘all wool and a yard wide.'”

    Yet many (including Shakespeare) pretended–largely to further their own careers and agendas–that it was.

    Acknowledging Richard’s  (and his heirs’) right to the throne would have delegitimized that of the future Henry VII (who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field), Henry VIII and any subsequent Tudor monarchs, and so Shakespeare (and Thomas More for that matter) did their bit to do Richard in.

    My point here is not to vitiate Shakespeare, much of whose output I admire (although I defy anyone to keep the heroes, heroines, and plots of quite a few of his “comedies” straight, and to tell me what’s what), or to insist that all art must be true to history, but once again, to suggest that it’s not unreasonable to think that his circumstances, his patronages, and the exigencies of his life colored his perceptions, especially in the matter you raised before, that of the Puritans, who’d have liked nothing better than to cancel him altogether.

    I highly recommend Joseph Pearce’s The Quest for Shakespeare. Pearce is a British literary critic who has a passion for his British heritage, though he’s immigrated to the US.

    A favorite of Mr. She’s who read many such books avidly, especially when they were written by those who weren’t stuffy academicians, but were relatively normal people embarked on a quest to find out about, and understand, those who’ve come before.  There’s another one, if I can find it….

    [Several minutes pass, in the best tradition of the Aristotelian Unities, to indicate the passing of several minutes.  She spends the entire time with a weather eye on this comment, hoping that Her satellite Interned connection doesn’t bug out in the current thunderstorm, as it regularly does, resulting in Her losing the whole thing]

    I think it’s this one: Shakespeare: The Biography, by Peter Ackroyd.  Pretty sure there were a few more, at least one by a woman.  If I run across them somewhere/sometime, I’ll post them.

    Then, there are the traditional biographies, such as that by Rowse (in his case demonstrating the case for Shakespeare’s Protestantism) and and a more-or-less (depending on where you start or end up   nutty series of books by many different authors professing to know the real secret of who actually authored Will’s plays and poems.  Fun stuff.  Nevertheless, sometimes it’s hard to tell the dancer from the dance, and the truth from the hoped-for, rosy-fingered myths.

    All we–and anyone else–can do is take our best shot and then defend it as best we can.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.