Fun fact Jodie and Nick! David Mitchell is in a sitcom called 'Upstart Crow' in which he actually plays Shakespeare. You'd think it would be highbrow and boring but it really isn't! It's more like the very British 'Carry On' films 😅 Not only are me and my partner always quoting it, but we now know answers on quiz shows about Shakespeare without even realising it! 🤣
J M Barrie gifted the rights to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1929. Over the years, this generous gift has provided a significant source of income to help support the work of the hospital, and to help provide seriously ill children with the best chance to fulfil their potential.
Subverted by Disney who refuse to contribute any income from their spin offs, based on Barrie's characters. They don't have to, but the amount of profit they make from them shows you the kind of people at Disney are.
Stephen Fry referenced Mark Rylance during this, my favourite actor of all time. His portrayal of Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall is a work of genius . In fact the whole adaptation is absolutely wonderful
Copyright has a time limit, which Shakespeare's plays have long since passed, so they can be freely reproduced without permission. In fact, Shakespeare's plays were written before modern copyright law was invented.
@@helenwood8482 not debatable. Copyright still expires. It's currently i think 75 years or so. In any case centuries out of it for Shakespeare. That's why quiz shows and so on get away with classical music. Or you get Dickens or Twain books for free to download (legally). There was copyright at the time! They just dropped out of it by now. However, there is a catch... the book/play/song is copyright free but performances have their own copyright. So a orchestra performing a long out of copyright piece, say Beethoven, have the copyright on that recording. But you can play it yourself or get a public domain version and that is fine. While performing your own version of a in-copyright song is not.
Presumably the Queen and her Court attributed them to Shakespeare so he was the front man who would take the blame if she didn't like them which could be bad for your health in Tudor times . I agree it doesn't really matter if he wrote all of them .
We had the read all of Shakespeare at school during English Literature lessons and I loved it! I love being able to quote Shakespeare, such an important part of our history. Great post guys. 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I find the "it doesn't really matter" argument bizarre. You could say the same about a lot of historical questions. Personally, I find it extremely interesting to know who wrote the plays. And for the record Shakespearean actors like Derek Jacobi study Shakespeare in depth. Their opinions are definitely more valuable than those of the average person.
it's a very North American thinking of what an actor is. As you stated in the UK the actors study playwrights at great depth and often will play roles for years. Most definitely an well trained actor could say they felt two plays were not written by the same mind. One factor that is often overlooked is that some of plays are cleaned up from the english of the time ... and often it is that translators/editors style that is duplicated as well.
If there's an element of snobbery in Shakespeare denial, because he wasn't of aristocratic descent, that's hugely ironic, because in Shakespeare's day, his plays were considered popular, even vulgar, entertainment.
The works of Shakespeare are in the public domain. Anyone is free to publish and distribute them. They predated the existence of copyright. Royalties would be due to no one.
You should try watching 'Upstart Crow'. Starring David Mitchell as Will Shakespeare it builds in a lot of Shakespearean references and is very funny. There's an episode specifically about the authorship of the plays.
Watch episodes of David Mitchell's excellent sit-com 'Upstart Crow' [ written by Ben Elton ], and you will see that Shakespeare didn't actually write his plays, but people around him. ( 3 series of 6 eps to date.)
A quick look at the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in the opening act of Henry V, justifying Henry's claims to properties in France, includes an explanation of Salic Law wherein no woman may acceed to the French Throne, and an astonishing knowledge of the lineage of French Kings going back to the 5th century, will leave the reader in no doubt that "Shakespeare", whoever he was, was not some ordinary 16th century citizen, who could not possibly have had access to such knowledge. However, a rose by any other name.....
If his name is on them, what other evidence do you have centuries later? GRRM of Game of Thrones fame is the son of a longshoremen (dockworker). J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter) was a secretary. It doesn't need anything other than imagination, a lot of people educate themselves to accomplish something - especially back then.
As you have reacted to the Two Ronnies. You will be happy to know that they did a sketch: ‘Shakespeare and the Milkman’. Where, the more eloquently spoken Milkman, helped the not so well spoken Shakespeare. With more refined and appropriate wording, in lines of his latest plays. Here is the link: th-cam.com/video/XhvGizpejeQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=AweJzOeZyj-UVxt8
I've read a little about the subject of the authorship. I'm by no means convinced about DeVere but a compelling case can be made that the glover's son from Stratford was not the man. Although we have many records about aspects of his life, they are all to do with things like business. There's nothing to indicate that he was a writer of such prodigious talent.
The thing that has always troubled me is that when he died he left quite a large estate mainly to his daughter but there were no writings or manuscripts amongst his possessions. For a prodigious author that is very unusual.
Members of the Rosicrucian Order secret society took a vow of anonymity. Shakespeare's work is pure Rosicrucian philosophy. So either Shakespeare broke his vow - punishable by death - or he was a figurehead for those who really wrote the works.
Surely they would have had curds and whey rather than yoghurt? Also, there's no way an edition of The Sun has 6,000 words in, it'll be more like a hundred.
The Royal Shakespeare Company looks after the heritage and legacy of Shakespeare and promotes his works and puts on productions. King Charles is the patron of this charity.
Shakespeare's output was huge. It beggars belief that he could have misled the Elizabethan Court about so many works. And, if Marlowe was the real writer, how come most people wouldn't be able to name any of his work if he was so good? The fact is they wrote very differently from each other. Shakespeare wrote with greater sophistication and greater variety of language. Marlowe was cruder and more routine.
Copyright is currently i think 75 years or so. Recently there was this debate about Micky Mouse dropping out of copyright . In any case centuries out of it for Shakespeare. That's why quiz shows and so on get away with classical music. Or you get Dickens or Twain books for free to download (legally). There was copyright at the time! They just dropped out of it by now However, there is a catch... the book/play/song is copyright free but performances have their own (new) copyright timer. So a orchestra performing a long out of copyright piece, say Beethoven, or a theater Shakespeare, have the copyright on that performance and recording. But they can use the original for free. But you can play it yourself or get a public domain version and that is fine. While performing your own version of a in-copyright song is not.
I believe the works are now simply public domain but.... call in the speacialist on these matters... The Night Watchman aka Gabe, I'm sure he has some conspiracy theories on Shakespear! :D
May have been here before it abruptly ended but I've seen somewhere that the signatures on his works don't always match, so another reason for historians doubt.
It varies from country to country but in many places works entered the public domain 100 years after they were created, but now in many places it is 70 years from the death of the creator. It can be that something is in the public domain in one country and not in another. So for example, as a channel where I've occasionally read the works of others or had people request that I do, as I'm in the UK, there have been things in the public domain in USA that technically, although it could be shown in the US I can't record it and upload it because I would be breaching copyright in the UK. There have been some high profile cases of families/estates trying to cling on to rights, like with Sherlock Holmes, because they are still so popular they make the estate a lot of money and ounce the copyright expires anyone can use/sell the works and make money from it. An interesting thing is that things, at least under the 100 year rule, enter public domain per item. So for example Winnie-the-Pooh and many aspects of the stories and characters are in public domain but Tigger was introduced in a later book and I think it was this year Tigger was in public domain and can be freely used by people...
It’s very easy to say after the fact, because there’s no way of proving it Even the Bible falls into that category, it was written by so many different people so long ago, who really knows who said what to who and why and whether in translation over the years stories have been changed
Shakespeare is the most brilliant writer in the English language. The snobbery by the upper classes in trying to discredit his brilliance is vulgar and sadly not surprising. They always try to shoe horn themselves in by adding the royal affix on to bloody everything.
Copyright usually runs for 70 years after the author's death - nominally the lifetime of anyone who knew them personally. There are different tine scales for different publications: like technical manuals. It would be daft to be able to copy a patent lapsed hoover, but not provide a repair manual for it. Several of his plays were produced & performed for the royal court. It seems unlikely you'd risk deceiving the King or Queen. Though it is fair so say ideas of authorship needn't have been as now. do we really believe the King James Bible was all his own work?
My opinion is that Shakespeare should never be taught in schools. When I was young I read everything I could, and that included opening one of our encyclopaedias on a random page and reading it. However I was never once motivated to pick up anything to read after learning Shakespeare. The books that gave me a craving to read were the ones aimed at someone my age. Reading Shakespeare when younger we never knew the difference between a light-hearted play, or one of tragedy and murder. If anything he is more likely to put children off reading.
Actors have also had this attitude of, my opinion has more value than yours. Look how many come out of the woodwork every election to say their bit, despite their knowledge being no more and in many cases less than the rest of us.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact Jodie and Nick! David Mitchell is in a sitcom called 'Upstart Crow' in which he actually plays Shakespeare. You'd think it would be highbrow and boring but it really isn't! It's more like the very British 'Carry On' films 😅 Not only are me and my partner always quoting it, but we now know answers on quiz shows about Shakespeare without even realising it! 🤣
It's Blackadder with Shakespeare in a way as it's written by Ben Elton who was one of the writers of Blackadder with Richard Curtis.
@@PHDarren "Would you prefer Montague Montague where for art thou Montague?"
"No because that just sounds like she's lost her cat." 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, and they did a live stage version of _Upstart Crow_ in London's west end, which I really enjoyed.
J M Barrie gifted the rights to Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1929. Over the years, this generous gift has provided a significant source of income to help support the work of the hospital, and to help provide seriously ill children with the best chance to fulfil their potential.
...in perpetuity by special act of parliament.
Subverted by Disney who refuse to contribute any income from their spin offs, based on Barrie's characters. They don't have to, but the amount of profit they make from them shows you the kind of people at Disney are.
Stephen Fry referenced Mark Rylance during this, my favourite actor of all time. His portrayal of Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall is a work of genius . In fact the whole adaptation is absolutely wonderful
Agree and Mantel's novels are superb❤
Totally agree 👍
I find his mannerisms irritating. Sorry.
@@pomerau he speaks very highly of you
Copyright has a time limit, which Shakespeare's plays have long since passed, so they can be freely reproduced without permission.
In fact, Shakespeare's plays were written before modern copyright law was invented.
Debatable. Copyright started in Saxon times, although I wasn't called that.
@@helenwood8482 not debatable. Copyright still expires. It's currently i think 75 years or so. In any case centuries out of it for Shakespeare. That's why quiz shows and so on get away with classical music. Or you get Dickens or Twain books for free to download (legally). There was copyright at the time! They just dropped out of it by now.
However, there is a catch... the book/play/song is copyright free but performances have their own copyright. So a orchestra performing a long out of copyright piece, say Beethoven, have the copyright on that recording. But you can play it yourself or get a public domain version and that is fine. While performing your own version of a in-copyright song is not.
You guys like David Mitchel, so give the TV sitcom "Upstart Crow" a shot. David stars as William Shakespeare.
Presumably the Queen and her Court attributed them to Shakespeare so he was the front man who would take the blame if she didn't like them which could be bad for your health in Tudor times . I agree it doesn't really matter if he wrote all of them .
Well, she was a bit crazy. Always conspiring with Melchett to play tricks on poor Edmund.
We had the read all of Shakespeare at school during English Literature lessons and I loved it! I love being able to quote Shakespeare, such an important part of our history.
Great post guys. 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I find the "it doesn't really matter" argument bizarre. You could say the same about a lot of historical questions. Personally, I find it extremely interesting to know who wrote the plays. And for the record Shakespearean actors like Derek Jacobi study Shakespeare in depth. Their opinions are definitely more valuable than those of the average person.
it's a very North American thinking of what an actor is. As you stated in the UK the actors study playwrights at great depth and often will play roles for years. Most definitely an well trained actor could say they felt two plays were not written by the same mind. One factor that is often overlooked is that some of plays are cleaned up from the english of the time ... and often it is that translators/editors style that is duplicated as well.
David Mitchell did a comedy series about Shakespeare
If there's an element of snobbery in Shakespeare denial, because he wasn't of aristocratic descent, that's hugely ironic, because in Shakespeare's day, his plays were considered popular, even vulgar, entertainment.
The works of Shakespeare are in the public domain. Anyone is free to publish and distribute them. They predated the existence of copyright. Royalties would be due to no one.
You should try watching 'Upstart Crow'. Starring David Mitchell as Will Shakespeare it builds in a lot of Shakespearean references and is very funny. There's an episode specifically about the authorship of the plays.
Everything goes to the public domain after 100 years. (95 after publication to be exact)
Anything further back anyone can use for any purpose.
Watch episodes of David Mitchell's excellent sit-com 'Upstart Crow' [ written by Ben Elton ], and you will see that Shakespeare didn't actually write his plays, but people around him. ( 3 series of 6 eps to date.)
A quick look at the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in the opening act of Henry V, justifying Henry's claims to properties in France, includes an explanation of Salic Law wherein no woman may acceed to the French Throne, and an astonishing knowledge of the lineage of French Kings going back to the 5th century, will leave the reader in no doubt that "Shakespeare", whoever he was, was not some ordinary 16th century citizen, who could not possibly have had access to such knowledge. However, a rose by any other name.....
It was the Americans after independence that kicked the natives out after they was promised land by the British.
If his name is on them, what other evidence do you have centuries later?
GRRM of Game of Thrones fame is the son of a longshoremen (dockworker).
J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter) was a secretary.
It doesn't need anything other than imagination, a lot of people educate themselves to accomplish something - especially back then.
Any reactor who says "I love David Mitchell" has my attention
if you haven't had the chance you shoudl watch "Upstart Crow" which is a comedy that features David Mitchel as Shakespeare
As you have reacted to the Two Ronnies. You will be happy to know that they did a sketch: ‘Shakespeare and the Milkman’. Where, the more eloquently spoken Milkman, helped the not so well spoken Shakespeare. With more refined and appropriate wording, in lines of his latest plays. Here is the link:
th-cam.com/video/XhvGizpejeQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=AweJzOeZyj-UVxt8
You should check out David Mitchell's (WILTY, QI) sitcom about William Shakespeare, "Upstart Crow".
I've read a little about the subject of the authorship. I'm by no means convinced about DeVere but a compelling case can be made that the glover's son from Stratford was not the man. Although we have many records about aspects of his life, they are all to do with things like business. There's nothing to indicate that he was a writer of such prodigious talent.
The thing that has always troubled me is that when he died he left quite a large estate mainly to his daughter but there were no writings or manuscripts amongst his possessions. For a prodigious author that is very unusual.
Shakespeare died 408 years ago, so not 500. he was born in 1564.
Even if someone couldn't write, it doesn't mean that person couldn't up with play and someone write them and Shakespeare tells them.
To be or not to be the writer, that is the question i often ask myself 🤔
Members of the Rosicrucian Order secret society took a vow of anonymity. Shakespeare's work is pure Rosicrucian philosophy. So either Shakespeare broke his vow - punishable by death - or he was a figurehead for those who really wrote the works.
Surely they would have had curds and whey rather than yoghurt? Also, there's no way an edition of The Sun has 6,000 words in, it'll be more like a hundred.
The Royal Shakespeare Company looks after the heritage and legacy of Shakespeare and promotes his works and puts on productions. King Charles is the patron of this charity.
Great Ormond Street Hospital is the institute you are looking for Nick😊😊
Shakespeare's output was huge. It beggars belief that he could have misled the Elizabethan Court about so many works. And, if Marlowe was the real writer, how come most people wouldn't be able to name any of his work if he was so good? The fact is they wrote very differently from each other. Shakespeare wrote with greater sophistication and greater variety of language. Marlowe was cruder and more routine.
Good old Uncle Francis!
Copyright is currently i think 75 years or so. Recently there was this debate about Micky Mouse dropping out of copyright . In any case centuries out of it for Shakespeare. That's why quiz shows and so on get away with classical music. Or you get Dickens or Twain books for free to download (legally). There was copyright at the time! They just dropped out of it by now
However, there is a catch... the book/play/song is copyright free but performances have their own (new) copyright timer. So a orchestra performing a long out of copyright piece, say Beethoven, or a theater Shakespeare, have the copyright on that performance and recording. But they can use the original for free.
But you can play it yourself or get a public domain version and that is fine. While performing your own version of a in-copyright song is not.
I believe the works are now simply public domain but....
call in the speacialist on these matters...
The Night Watchman aka Gabe, I'm sure he has some conspiracy theories on Shakespear! :D
in the UK you can neither slander nor libel the dead.
We have good primary sources from Roman and battle of Hastings and this is year before Shakespeare.
May have been here before it abruptly ended but I've seen somewhere that the signatures on his works don't always match, so another reason for historians doubt.
My signatures very rarely match, heaven forfend if I should ever be asked to reproduce the signature on my Driving Licence or Passport
@grabtharshammer I've no opinion either way, just something I've heard. Maybe you can avenge him lol.
Generally, copyright protection lasts for the length of the author's life plus another 70 years
Nick, it's J. M. Barrie, not James Embrey.
It varies from country to country but in many places works entered the public domain 100 years after they were created, but now in many places it is 70 years from the death of the creator.
It can be that something is in the public domain in one country and not in another. So for example, as a channel where I've occasionally read the works of others or had people request that I do, as I'm in the UK, there have been things in the public domain in USA that technically, although it could be shown in the US I can't record it and upload it because I would be breaching copyright in the UK.
There have been some high profile cases of families/estates trying to cling on to rights, like with Sherlock Holmes, because they are still so popular they make the estate a lot of money and ounce the copyright expires anyone can use/sell the works and make money from it.
An interesting thing is that things, at least under the 100 year rule, enter public domain per item. So for example Winnie-the-Pooh and many aspects of the stories and characters are in public domain but Tigger was introduced in a later book and I think it was this year Tigger was in public domain and can be freely used by people...
It’s very easy to say after the fact, because there’s no way of proving it Even the Bible falls into that category, it was written by so many different people so long ago, who really knows who said what to who and why and whether in translation over the years stories have been changed
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the actual author.
Don't be silly, the smart conspiracy theorist all know it was his labradoodle, Kindle 😛
You didn't pay much attention to this video, did you?
If Gabe wrote a book, would he need permission from Crayola to publish it?
Don't google 'vajazzle' Nick, you probably don't want to know.
Shakespeare is the most brilliant writer in the English language. The snobbery by the upper classes in trying to discredit his brilliance is vulgar and sadly not surprising. They always try to shoe horn themselves in by adding the royal affix on to bloody everything.
It wasn't and isn't 'The Upper Classes' making these claims.
Copyright usually runs for 70 years after the author's death - nominally the lifetime of anyone who knew them personally.
There are different tine scales for different publications: like technical manuals. It would be daft to be able to copy a patent lapsed hoover, but not provide a repair manual for it.
Several of his plays were produced & performed for the royal court. It seems unlikely you'd risk deceiving the King or Queen. Though it is fair so say ideas of authorship needn't have been as now. do we really believe the King James Bible was all his own work?
Shakespeare's works are long out of copyright, so belong to nobody now.
Fry passing a non-truth again, it was doubted broadly since the he died.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty
My opinion is that Shakespeare should never be taught in schools. When I was young I read everything I could, and that included opening one of our encyclopaedias on a random page and reading it. However I was never once motivated to pick up anything to read after learning Shakespeare. The books that gave me a craving to read were the ones aimed at someone my age. Reading Shakespeare when younger we never knew the difference between a light-hearted play, or one of tragedy and murder. If anything he is more likely to put children off reading.
Actors have also had this attitude of, my opinion has more value than yours. Look how many come out of the woodwork every election to say their bit, despite their knowledge being no more and in many cases less than the rest of us.