#also am I implying that England himself was actually Shakespeare? >.>

[alifeasvivid]

inspired by a conversation with @disneyprincessdxminatrix and also I'm sure other people have talked about this, but... canonverse where England does things like get out his old pirate gear (a nation's personal effects never age) and dress up and does like… story times and theatre activities with kids because of course, he tells the BEST stories or maybe he gets in on amateur or local or other small venue theatre productions and he never goes out for the lead role, he always wants to play the witty side character or the antagonist and he's damn brilliant at it. Perhaps, he was even uncharacteristically unable to conceal his Puckish glee when America started talking about a certain table top game back in the 1970's and playing with him is like getting a masterclass in DM'ing.

England probably isn't the best writer, I think, particularly not when it comes to prose. He's left the refinement of the written word to his people, but he is a raconteur... a storyteller... a bard, if you will.

I think the caveat is that only his people really see this side of him. Other nations and their people would have to be extremely lucky to catch a glimpse.

[tobegentleandkind]

(Re-)Reading Shakespeare 15/38: King Henry VI Part 2

"But then we are in order when we are most out of order."

My first time reading this play and I wonder wtf is going on here. It's definitely alot. First of all England is not in a good place, because the nobles are not happy with Henry marrying Margaret and establishing peace with France instead of claiming the French throne and therefore there is a lot of distrust from the start. As Henry also comes off as being very naive everyone is plotting against each other to become the no. 1 person to manipulate him, including his own wife, who is absolutely fed up with Henry for not reigning autonomously, but relying heavily on Gloucester's advice. There is also Gloucester's wife Eleanor who makes use of witchcraft to get husband, apparenty the only trustworthy person left at court,aspire to become King himself instead of just protector. Tellingly, evil women and witchcraft are once again a theme in this play and women are presented as the real puppet masters at court as they are controlling their husbands. When Henry finally emancipates himself and fires Gloucester as protector this leads not only to Gloucester's death, but also to several rebellions: all signs imply that Henry is not fit to be King, although I personally really like his pacifistic, gentle form of kingship. But first the commons revolt under the lead of Cade and a short interval of the carnevealesque with Cade as king of carnival ensues: he claims to be a long lost relative who is rightful heir to the throne and promises the people free-flowing alcohol and women being up for grabs (yikes) if he becomes King. Further, he plans to abolish money and grammar, kill educated people and burn down institutions like the Parliament and London Bridge, in short, he wants to destroy culture. The question is: os this anarchy or is this just this sad little man's complex? Luckily, the people are easily swayed by the nobles' political talk and Cade needs to flee. But this is just a short breathing pause as York and his army are ready to stake his claim to the throne, and as real heir of Richard II who was usurped by Henry's grandfather, he actually has such a huge right on the throne that several nobles break their allegiance to Henry and join the revolution. It is interesting that in this play several non-kings declare themselves to be King and even gain support, because Henry is not accepted to be King, neither by the commons nor by the nobles, even not by his own wife, who rather acts like she is the King. I am so ready to read Part 3.

[lady-plantagenet]

Unpopular opinion, no anon edition because I dont care if ppl know: The absurd amount of hatred vs romanticization Richard III faces is both incredibly annoying, and incredibly amusing. The sheer volume of misconceptions in both spite and favour of him are baffling to me? Can we not accept that Richard was as multifaceted and complex as any regular human being? Whether you love or hate him, he was still a person who had to play a game he either couldn't understand or didnt want to play at all.

https://lady-plantagenet.tumblr.com/post/617714526816714752/send-me-unpopular-opinions

| strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

Thank you so much for the ask 👀😊, it’s perfectly timed with some of the Anti-Richardian crackdown that is going on on here these par couple of days haha

This answer won’t be full of historical citation like the previous because, as one of the most well-known figures, I think don’t think people need me to be informed about Richard III’s life.

Let’s talk about fiction. I am in the process of finishing ‘The Sunne in Splendour’ by SKP atm and I must say that despite it having its occasional high narrative points (I mean it some scenes are poignant), it exemplifies the ridiculous revisionist attitude that pertains to Richardians. I was told that it was the book about him, however, hidden behind the wealth of historically accurate detail, there is a portrayal of Richard III, which, dances too close to that of a Gary Stu. George is turned into a violent buffoon, Isabel into a weakling, Elizabeth Woodville into essentially Cersei Lannister and Anthony Woodville... oh man... into a greedy fool.

This exemplifies the weakness of the Richardian dogma: he cannot be made saintly without innacurately twisting the truth about his detractors to the point that their personalities no longer match the history, therefore he could not have been the romantic hero they all envision IRL. It eludes me how no one notices this.

Richard himself would probably cringe at the blind devoted love some people attach to this romanticised version, because as you implied, he was a 15th century man with 15th century morals and we love him for this. If we didn’t, then why not switch to a modern history interest? He is just about the most complex figure in the Wars of the Roses era because we are so unclear about a lot of his motives and feelings.

Sue me, but for all intents and purposes, I think he was portrayed well by Aneurin Barnard in The White Queen TV series. We are unclear about how he feels about any of the people close to him (except his son, it was quite clear he loved him). Hell, it is also unclear how he feels about his enemies, all we can see is a sheer pragmatism which conceals an idealism and sense of justice deep down that never left him (see his law reforms and devout religiousity). That is Richard to me. Not an impulsive and blindly loyal man - because I mean common, isn’t it a bit convenient that he waited until Edward’s death to expose the Eleanor Butler marriage, if he were blindly loyal to Edward he would have let the information slide into obscurity. Also, if he were an idealist he would have acted like George of Clarence and brashly rebelled and taken public steps to make it clear to all of England that the King’s marriage was invalid or at least inform Edward IV that he knows. But no, he bid his time, the events of 1483 unfolded and he drew the conclusion out of both pragmatism and a higher sense of duty, that the Woodvilles were not going to co-operate and he played the cards he for many years had to himself. He did not relish in executing Hastings and Anthony (who were without fault) but he saw it as a lesser evil, because with them alive England would collapse into another power struggle. He also knew they would have done the same to him - given the chance and that’s just the way things were in the 15th century.

In conclusion, I am unsure if he wanted to play the game or not - but I remain firm on the idea that he knew how to and from a precocious age. He was never the impulsive lad from Richardian literature. You may have noticed I didn’t address my views on the misconceptions against him. This is because ever since I was born in 1998, all I had ever known was the Richardian revisionist view of Richard III as misunderstood, tragic and a great guy. There is not even a point of going on about the injustices done towards his character because no person in their right mind *actually* believes in the Shakespearean interpretation. This Richardian view I describe (and as you may have not noticed from other people’s posts) has been around since the Victorian era as had greatly superceded in prominence the Shakespeare view.

What I want is a complex, intelligent, principled but ruthless Richard III, not the blindly loyal and innocent romantic hero nor the evil power-hungry overpowered uncle who did the impossible e.g. murder George Duke of Clarence (like wtf) or the Duke of Somerset (who died when he was 3!)

Thank you for sending this ask, I really enjoy answering them 🍷❤️

[gingerbreadbooks2020]

Bookblr post #25

Quarter of the way to post 100! I wonder if I’ll ever make it there... Oh well! It’s April 19th and I did a bit more reading today!

[Image above: the beginning of Scene 3, Act 1 of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. This image is my own.]

So today I read all of act 2, which was a bit shorter than I expected.

Also, massive spoiler warning if you haven’t read Macbeth yet!

In act 2, Macbeth murders (“murthers”, which I read as it’s spelt because I’m stupid) King Duncan. They leave the bloodied daggers with the two guards, who Macbeth then also kills for treason. It’s actually a pretty smart way of shifting the blame.

The king’s sons, Malcom and Donalbain, flee to Ireland and England, feeling unsafe. This leaves the crown to Macbeth, finally getting what was ‘rightfully’ his. That’s not a direct quote, but you understand what I mean.

There’s some very noble imagery of Duncan, with him being described as having “silver skin” and “golden blood”. The gashes in his skin are compared to tears in nature, and soon after the reader learns of great storms, horses breaking out of their stables and turning in mankind, darkness during daytime and so on. As if Macbeth has broken the cogs of nature herself. This is fitting with the time, when society relies on a hierarchy of classes. Macbeth wasn’t low in society, I’m not trying to imply that, but he wasn’t of royal blood; he wasn’t in direct line to the throne, yet he has gone against that ordering of people to put himself at the top.

Another way of looking at it is that, if the King is God’s chosen leader, ‘Divine Right’ is what is what called, then Macbeth, in killing the King, has gone against God. Gone against God’s creations, all of nature and the way it behaves. God said “let there be light”, and yet after God’s chosen leader has been murdered, there is instead darkness.

I guess I am enjoying this book, after two years spent analysing it in such great details finally stepping back to just read it as a normal consumer would. It’s fun.

- Gingerbread ♤

P.S I do have two non-fiction books that I need to finish reading, but I don’t know if they’d be appropriate for this blog. I’m not saying they’re NSFW (they really aren’t!), but so far I’ve only read fiction books for this blog. What do you guys think? As always, stay inside, stay safe. Love to you all x