One of the reasons I love Shakespeare's history plays is the fact that the kings are flawed humans just like the rest of us. It shows that some are better able to rule than others. I've always loved that Henry V spent time with the "less worthy." As a king or queen, I think, it helps to be well rounded and able to view the world from the eyes of your subjects whatever their rank in society. Shakespeare shows us in his plays that those monarchs who can't do this are usually the ones who are deposed.
Love your historical purview. I taught high school literature and always tried to give my students the background of the literature studying. I have had many students tell me they learned more history in my class than in their history classes.
It always amazes me how Shakespeare often comments upon the duality of life, of man, of the world. His use of paradox and oxymorons: Henry as the rogue and at the same time, a calculator: as you said- the man and the king. Very reminiscent of ancient Chinese ideas of ying and yang. In Macbeth, it is “fair is foul and foul is fair.” So interesting.
Except that Henry V was in fact anything but an idle youth. He held and executed creditably positions of great responsibility from age 16, when, leading troops, he was wounded with an arrow to his face at the Battle of Shrewsbury. He later put down Glendower's revolt in Wales.
I think I got them right. I am aware that Macbeth was a Scottish monarch, and I have placed him in chronological order. So we now have Lear, Macbeth, John, Richard II, 1 Henry iv, 2 Henry iv, Henry v, 1 Henry vi, 2 Henry vi, 3 Henry vi, Richard iii, Henry viii. I suppose that, although he didn't take part in the play, Edward vi was the reigning monarch during Arden of Feversham.
Always fascinating! Henry V isn't my favorite Shakespeare play but it has been done very well by some very talented actors playing the title role. I'm wondering if you could spend some time talking about the Great Fire of London in 1666.
Hello, what a great thing you are doing, I love watching your videos and learning about what you have to say. Question? Have you thought about doing videos on historical figures like Da Vinci or the Medici family? I’d love to see your take on these types of icons...
For the record, here is what I put down: King John, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard III, Henry VIII (personally I find it fascinating he did nothing with Richard I,Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, and waited until the very, very end to tackle Elizabeth I's father). I think your (superb) questions has a multi-part answer. First, there is the fact Shakespeare does not write flawless saints--even the most virtuous of his characters have hints of darkness and flaws (Brutus, Isabel, Henry V, Friar Lawrence, etc.). Likewise even his human monsters seem somehow human and frail, yes even Aaron and Richard III, the only possible exception being Iago (although I disagree). This helps make his plays so compelling, because the characters seem so real, so identifyingly human (see how relentlessly one note nearly all of Marlowe's characters tend to be in comparison). Second, this served him very well in writing about Kings--especially real life English Kings--in a theatre subject to a Royal Censor. Shakespeare's plays routinely and relentlessly portray the throne as a very uncomfortable place to sit, the crown as a heavy burden, the coronation and process of rule as full of stress, with even the best of men barely equal to the task. Royalty is de-humanizing, as we see in Lear, Leontes, John, and others. Many simply are unequal to the task, such as Henry VI, Cymbeline, Duncan, Edward IV, and (important for this discussion) the French King in HENRY V. Then there are some who are literally broken by the crown for which they are in no way suited--Richard III and Macbeth, most obviously but also Prospero. The result of course is to inspire no so much envy for the wealth, comfort and power of a King, as pity for someone whose slightest mistake can cause such total disaster (see teh Duke in ROMEO AND JULIET, or pretty much everything about RICHARD II). And I suspect this killing of the prisoners--as well as open threat to rape and murder the entire population of Harfleur--chilled many members of Shakespeare's audience, but ultimately made King Hal seem more human, and his prayers when alone revealing his personal terrors (the only time he can do so--he is the King and may not seem weak or afraid) inspire pity. He is a man alone, without confidante. A terrible thing. I suspect this is one reason his winning the French Princess (just as the Duke's wooing of Isabel in MEASURE FOR MEASURE, Leontes re-uniting with Hermione in THE WINTER'S TALE, much of the mixed feelings we have at the end of LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST, the Duke's finally finding a wife in TWELFTH NIGHT, etc.) feels so fulfilling. Because in Shakespeare's world, no one is more alone that a mortal King on Earth.
I studied Henry 4 part 1for 'O'level English literature and fell hopelessly in love with Henry 5. I then read Jean Plaidy's historical novels(borrowed from the library). So owe most of my history from her stories. What I loved about Henry 5 was he never seemed to take himself seriously and did what he thought was right at the time. The massacre of the French prisoners is a case in point, done to stop the slaughter of English troops. Probably thought no more of untill someone on the French side decided to rewrite the outcome after
Got them all right, even though I've never even been to Britain😁 I'm probably more familiar with your succession than that of my own country. In my defence, our monarchy is a bit older, so there might be more to keep track of... Getting all these kings in the right order seems to have put me in a bragg-y sort of mood☺🔅
Got them all right! FYI I’M a Doctor of philosophy in computational sociology-not English history. Although I understand the Wars of the Roses eventually led to the English colonization of America which eventually led to my ancestors coming here to America which eventually led to me!
Henry was a war criminal, but not for killing his prisoners at Agincourt. That was well within the rules of war at the time, under the circumstances. His noble men-at-arms were reluctant to kill their valuable, ransomable prisoners, but his common archers harbored no such qualms. Only the highest-ranking French were spared. The highest ranking of all was killed by accident, since he had arrived late to the battlefield, and put on cheap armor, his own baggage train still en route. Henry's worst war crime was letting the civilians driven out of Rouen during his siege die, a la Caesar at Alesia.
Shakespeare points out that Henry V's son's dying without an heir lead indirectly, _but blessedly_ to Henry 7, 8, and Elizabeth I. I suppose he is suggesting that Elizabeth I dying without progeny will still lead to a _blessed by God_ glorious Stuart monarchy? After all, James I was a grandson of Henry VII.
Interesting point. However, I think you'll find that James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots... who was the daughter of James V of Scotland... who was the son of Margaret, daughter of Henry VII, so James I and IV would be the great-great-grandson of Henry VII.
I have really been enjoying your discussions. This discussion of Henry V in relation to the Shakespeare play is very interesting, but I was wondering if you had done any discussion of the historical reign Henry V and then the regency period of his brothers?
simply woow! Very useful and well structured. Thank you for posting it. Little suggestion: few more written prompts might be helpful, in oder to follow what you say, as there is a lot of information; i.e. when you tell the name of Irish leader during the Nine Years'War. ;)
I think Shakespeare is saying beware of the time of no heir...try to make this time (with Elizabeth) a peaceful change over to a new house. Otherwise we face war and blood shed and all manner of evil as we did all the other times this happened. With Henry the V, he is showing how great the English had become having victories over the great forces of France. Then ending the play with discussion of Henry Vi implying how low the English fell. Basically, don't let this happen again once Elizabeth dies. Stay united like we did during Henry V.
I paused this & w/o looking anywhere answer: John (son of Henry II & the awesome Eleanor of Aquitaine) then Richard II, then Henry IV (Bolingbroke); then his son Henry V (of Agincourt); then Henry V’s pathetic son Henry VI (who married Margaret of Anjou); followed by Richard III & then we have infamous Henry VIII.
Of course you did! ;) I was looking to see if anyone else went "haha! Easy! William, William, Henry, Stephen..." ~They call me the first English king, although I come from France...
3:23 I'm watching on a smartphone. I'd love to see if I can work out the order of monarchs but, I can't read clearly enough any of that text. Especially the text in red. Even with my specs on 🤓
As an aside into history, may I draw your attention to the fact that the thirty second music to " Countdown " was composed by Alan Hawkshaw from Leeds, Yorkshire, for which he is still being paid royalties - jsyk.
Henry likes to alter his public images for various reasons--to hear privates' opinions and present an ineffectual candidate for king. Role playing in the theatre of life. Shakespeare himself?
I’ve read that there are a few names that are considered bad omens, especially for a first son, by the royal family. I remember John, Stephen, and Arthur all being mentioned. I’d have to read about it more to verify, but supposedly the reason they’re “unlucky” is because princes with those names have died young, and no one wants to tempt fate.
@@Annie_Annie__ John and Stephen didn't die young, at least not for those times. I thought it might be because Stephen was considered a usurper and John was considered an especially crummy ruler, not to mention it being a slang term for the loo. Arthur died young, poor fellow. One wonders what if. Henry VIII might have been happier as the spare, leading the military and not having to mind his manners too much or produce a male heir. I wonder who he would have married if Arthur had lived.
@@MsLogjam Initially, Henry had been prepared for a life in the church. Being the spare, he wasn't given that much attention at the time and he was supposed to become a cardinal at some point, if I'm not mistaken. Then of course, Arthur died and the plans had changed.
One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Very interesting that he wrote it and staged it during this part of Elizabeth's reign. Perhaps preparing the way for what will come after.
Is it possible that Shakespeare simply felt sympathy for Elizabeth (as his patron) for being the last one? No matter the era, passing of a ruler is most always a change in the system, maybe he felt uneasy about it. Edit: I am not sure if you have done the video on Fields of Gold, but if it is not too much trouble, I would love to hear about that. Thank you, Dr. Kat.
I got Richard II and King John mixed up. I thought he was Richard the Lionheart which would come before King John as John was his brother. Everyone else I got right.
You ask about the killing of the French prisoners: This followed the slaying by French soldiers of the boys in the baggage. I believe it was partly strategic because Henry thought the French would overwhelm his men but mostly retribution for this heinous act.
Read the play carefully. The boys were killed after Henry decided to kill the prisoners. Brannagh wouldn't have censured the prisoners execution if it had been so 'easily' justified. Not to mention the French civilians he left out to die in front of his lines during a previous siege.
I think the act of killing prisoners was tyrannical but necessary, and by including it, Shakespeare, writing for a very strong Queen, is reminding all 'don't mess with us because at the end of the day, we will protect ourselves'.
This is nonsense. The prologue to Act 5 has nothing to do with Essex and his mission to Ireland (which was a notorious failure, not a triumph). It is, in fact, a description of an earlier successful Irish military expedition by Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormond against Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond. 1n 1579, Desmond, allied with both the King of Spain and the Pope, instigated a rebellion against Protestant England. Elizabeth named her cousin Ormond, General of her troops and dispatched him to put down Desmond. It was only in November 1583 that Ormond's men finally captured Desmond in a remote cabin where he'd been hiding. They took the expedient of beheading Desmond on the spot, riding back to their camp and presenting the severed head, on the point of a sword to Ormond. He then sent the head back to England, along with a letter describing what had happened. A letter that Shakespeare was obviously paraphrasing with; 'rebellion broached on his sword.' Ormond remained in Ireland, tying up loose ends until May of 1584, when he returned to England. So, we have an actual historical event that dates a play with exactitude. Shakespeare finished Henry V between November 1583 and early Spring 1584.
Some people think a man named Henry Neville wrote Shakespeare. He was an ambassador, and part of the “king-making” family. He was highly intelligent, and an excellent judge of human beings; he understood the human condition. Just see Hamlet 🙂. In his politics he understood kings & queens were human like anybody else, and should not be given absolute power. He was for a parliamentary government, which Britain eventually got. He was a man ahead of his time, and for that he ended up in the tower with Southampton.
Dr Kat+ Here is a question for you; Do you think that Shakespeare was a false flag, a pseudonym for the true writer of the plays who wanted to remain anonymous. It has been suggested that frequent candidates such as Christopher Marlowe, Sir Francis Bacon, and Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford were the true writers, eg Shakespeare never traveled, wasn't wealthy enough to afford candles to write his scripts etc etc, but he was a story teller who frequented taverns. What is your opinion?
I wonder if in 300 years or so, if his music is still being sung, if people will say the same thing about Irving Berlin - that no one with no formal education and no musical education could write such a wide range of things with such cultural impact.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [TEASER MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VC689EgdSIw/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the reasons I love Shakespeare's history plays is the fact that the kings are flawed humans just like the rest of us. It shows that some are better able to rule than others.
I've always loved that Henry V spent time with the "less worthy." As a king or queen, I think, it helps to be well rounded and able to view the world from the eyes of your subjects whatever their rank in society. Shakespeare shows us in his plays that those monarchs who can't do this are usually the ones who are deposed.
Very interesting linking Shakespeare with what was happening politically at the time - so often overlooked Thanks
Love your historical purview. I taught high school literature and always tried to give my students the background of the literature studying. I have had many students tell me they learned more history in my class than in their history classes.
It always amazes me how Shakespeare often comments upon the duality of life, of man, of the world. His use of paradox and oxymorons: Henry as the rogue and at the same time, a calculator: as you said- the man and the king. Very reminiscent of ancient Chinese ideas of ying and yang. In Macbeth, it is “fair is foul and foul is fair.” So interesting.
Except that Henry V was in fact anything but an idle youth. He held and executed creditably positions of great responsibility from age 16, when, leading troops, he was wounded with an arrow to his face at the Battle of Shrewsbury. He later put down Glendower's revolt in Wales.
Claire Ridgway & your channel are now my favorites.
Beautifully done. Thank you.
I have just found your channel recently and am enjoying it. Thank you.
I got Henry the fourth and Richard the second mixed up, but I was right for the rest, not too bad for an American lol
I really enjoy your channel and love your presentation. Your enthusiasm shines through!
I am deeply enchanted by your perfect vocabulary and uncontested analysis of Henry V 😍
I know you love telling these stories and we love listening to them thank you very much.
As an actor, this video makes me so happy!!
Thank you for your presentation. I feel like I am
a university student again. But you are much better
than I had.
I love your content and I love your voice! Thank you for sharing your knowledge of history and making it entertaining.
Thank you very much Dr Kat. I am "struggling" and it is so great to have approaches like yours.
You sure do give us a lot of food for thought. Thank you!
I quoted this video in my Henry V final essay in my Shakespeare class in college for my English Bachelor's degree. Thank you for that.
I think I got them right. I am aware that Macbeth was a Scottish monarch, and I have placed him in chronological order. So we now have Lear, Macbeth, John, Richard II, 1 Henry iv, 2 Henry iv, Henry v, 1 Henry vi, 2 Henry vi, 3 Henry vi, Richard iii, Henry viii. I suppose that, although he didn't take part in the play, Edward vi was the reigning monarch during Arden of Feversham.
Cymbeline is in there as well somewhere before / after Lear.
I enjoy this channel so much! Thank you for all of the work you put into it :)
Got them all right! Thank you People’s Profiles and Dan Jones!
Always fascinating! Henry V isn't my favorite Shakespeare play but it has been done very well by some very talented actors playing the title role. I'm wondering if you could spend some time talking about the Great Fire of London in 1666.
Dr. Kat has done one. I remember watching it.
I liked you music so much I went to the TH-cam channel and listened to the whole song. Thanks.
me too
I have just discovered you. Thanks, they are lovely. Could you do "The Lion in Winter"
Addicted to your channel
Hello, what a great thing you are doing, I love watching your videos and learning about what you have to say. Question? Have you thought about doing videos on historical figures like Da Vinci or the Medici family? I’d love to see your take on these types of icons...
For the record, here is what I put down: King John, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard III, Henry VIII (personally I find it fascinating he did nothing with Richard I,Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, and waited until the very, very end to tackle Elizabeth I's father).
I think your (superb) questions has a multi-part answer.
First, there is the fact Shakespeare does not write flawless saints--even the most virtuous of his characters have hints of darkness and flaws (Brutus, Isabel, Henry V, Friar Lawrence, etc.). Likewise even his human monsters seem somehow human and frail, yes even Aaron and Richard III, the only possible exception being Iago (although I disagree). This helps make his plays so compelling, because the characters seem so real, so identifyingly human (see how relentlessly one note nearly all of Marlowe's characters tend to be in comparison).
Second, this served him very well in writing about Kings--especially real life English Kings--in a theatre subject to a Royal Censor. Shakespeare's plays routinely and relentlessly portray the throne as a very uncomfortable place to sit, the crown as a heavy burden, the coronation and process of rule as full of stress, with even the best of men barely equal to the task. Royalty is de-humanizing, as we see in Lear, Leontes, John, and others. Many simply are unequal to the task, such as Henry VI, Cymbeline, Duncan, Edward IV, and (important for this discussion) the French King in HENRY V. Then there are some who are literally broken by the crown for which they are in no way suited--Richard III and Macbeth, most obviously but also Prospero. The result of course is to inspire no so much envy for the wealth, comfort and power of a King, as pity for someone whose slightest mistake can cause such total disaster (see teh Duke in ROMEO AND JULIET, or pretty much everything about RICHARD II).
And I suspect this killing of the prisoners--as well as open threat to rape and murder the entire population of Harfleur--chilled many members of Shakespeare's audience, but ultimately made King Hal seem more human, and his prayers when alone revealing his personal terrors (the only time he can do so--he is the King and may not seem weak or afraid) inspire pity. He is a man alone, without confidante. A terrible thing. I suspect this is one reason his winning the French Princess (just as the Duke's wooing of Isabel in MEASURE FOR MEASURE, Leontes re-uniting with Hermione in THE WINTER'S TALE, much of the mixed feelings we have at the end of LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST, the Duke's finally finding a wife in TWELFTH NIGHT, etc.) feels so fulfilling. Because in Shakespeare's world, no one is more alone that a mortal King on Earth.
Well done, David!!!!If you’re ever in Colorado stop by for a chat!
He did, it is now accepted that Edward III was by Shakespeare.
I studied Henry 4 part 1for 'O'level English literature and fell hopelessly in love with Henry 5. I then read Jean Plaidy's historical novels(borrowed from the library). So owe most of my history from her stories.
What I loved about Henry 5 was he never seemed to take himself seriously and did what he thought was right at the time. The massacre of the French prisoners is a case in point, done to stop the slaughter of English troops. Probably thought no more of untill someone on the French side decided to rewrite the outcome after
The quiz was fun! i only managed to mix up Henry IV and Richard II 😁 This channel is amazing, and i wish i'd discovered it sooner!
Got them all right, even though I've never even been to Britain😁 I'm probably more familiar with your succession than that of my own country. In my defence, our monarchy is a bit older, so there might be more to keep track of...
Getting all these kings in the right order seems to have put me in a bragg-y sort of mood☺🔅
very interesting!
Got them all right! FYI I’M a Doctor of philosophy in computational sociology-not English history. Although I understand the Wars of the Roses eventually led to the English colonization of America which eventually led to my ancestors coming here to America which eventually led to me!
Henry was a war criminal, but not for killing his prisoners at Agincourt. That was well within the rules of war at the time, under the circumstances. His noble men-at-arms were reluctant to kill their valuable, ransomable prisoners, but his common archers harbored no such qualms. Only the highest-ranking French were spared. The highest ranking of all was killed by accident, since he had arrived late to the battlefield, and put on cheap armor, his own baggage train still en route.
Henry's worst war crime was letting the civilians driven out of Rouen during his siege die, a la Caesar at Alesia.
Hello, I really like your channel!
Shakespeare points out that Henry V's son's dying without an heir lead indirectly, _but blessedly_ to Henry 7, 8, and Elizabeth I. I suppose he is suggesting that Elizabeth I dying without progeny will still lead to a _blessed by God_ glorious Stuart monarchy? After all, James I was a grandson of Henry VII.
Interesting point. However, I think you'll find that James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots... who was the daughter of James V of Scotland... who was the son of Margaret, daughter of Henry VII, so James I and IV would be the great-great-grandson of Henry VII.
I took a Shakespeare lìt cĺass back when I was 20, a young English major. I really didn't "get" much of it back then. I wish I could retake it now.
Thank you 😁
I have really been enjoying your discussions. This discussion of Henry V in relation to the Shakespeare play is very interesting, but I was wondering if you had done any discussion of the historical reign Henry V and then the regency period of his brothers?
I got them all correct! Amazing for an American, I think!
simply woow! Very useful and well structured. Thank you for posting it.
Little suggestion: few more written prompts might be helpful, in oder to follow what you say, as there is a lot of information; i.e. when you tell the name of Irish leader during the Nine Years'War. ;)
I think Shakespeare is saying beware of the time of no heir...try to make this time (with Elizabeth) a peaceful change over to a new house. Otherwise we face war and blood shed and all manner of evil as we did all the other times this happened. With Henry the V, he is showing how great the English had become having victories over the great forces of France. Then ending the play with discussion of Henry Vi implying how low the English fell. Basically, don't let this happen again once Elizabeth dies. Stay united like we did during Henry V.
This is my favorite of all literature.
ty!
I paused this & w/o looking anywhere answer: John (son of Henry II & the awesome Eleanor of Aquitaine) then Richard II, then Henry IV (Bolingbroke); then his son Henry V (of Agincourt); then Henry V’s pathetic son Henry VI (who married Margaret of Anjou); followed by Richard III & then we have infamous Henry VIII.
I got them all right!!! I felt like I was on Jeopardy again!!!
What about Edward III? Now accepted as being part of Shakespeare's works..
I got them right and in order of reign but didn't remember the dates. I was surprised I got the order right though!
We have also had Charles 1 who was executed!I wonder if the next king of England ,prince Charles may decide to choose another of his names?!
I’m William the Conqueror, my enemies stood no chance... I got them all right 😁
Of course you did! ;) I was looking to see if anyone else went "haha! Easy! William, William, Henry, Stephen..."
~They call me the first English king, although I come from France...
3:23 I'm watching on a smartphone.
I'd love to see if I can work out the order of monarchs but, I can't read clearly enough any of that text.
Especially the text in red.
Even with my specs on 🤓
As an aside into history, may I draw your attention to the fact that the thirty second music to " Countdown " was composed by Alan Hawkshaw from Leeds, Yorkshire, for which he is still being paid royalties - jsyk.
3:50 - All reigns correctly ordered :)
I got them all correct, I think this is the first pop quiz that I aced!
Henry likes to alter his public images for various reasons--to hear privates' opinions and present an ineffectual candidate for king. Role playing in the theatre of life. Shakespeare himself?
I've noticed that no heir to the throne has ever been named after John or Stephen, and none has been named Richard since the War of the Roses.
I’ve read that there are a few names that are considered bad omens, especially for a first son, by the royal family. I remember John, Stephen, and Arthur all being mentioned.
I’d have to read about it more to verify, but supposedly the reason they’re “unlucky” is because princes with those names have died young, and no one wants to tempt fate.
@@Annie_Annie__ John and Stephen didn't die young, at least not for those times. I thought it might be because Stephen was considered a usurper and John was considered an especially crummy ruler, not to mention it being a slang term for the loo. Arthur died young, poor fellow. One wonders what if. Henry VIII might have been happier as the spare, leading the military and not having to mind his manners too much or produce a male heir. I wonder who he would have married if Arthur had lived.
@@MsLogjam Initially, Henry had been prepared for a life in the church. Being the spare, he wasn't given that much attention at the time and he was supposed to become a cardinal at some point, if I'm not mistaken. Then of course, Arthur died and the plans had changed.
One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Very interesting that he wrote it and staged it during this part of Elizabeth's reign. Perhaps preparing the way for what will come after.
Is it possible that Shakespeare simply felt sympathy for Elizabeth (as his patron) for being the last one? No matter the era, passing of a ruler is most always a change in the system, maybe he felt uneasy about it.
Edit:
I am not sure if you have done the video on Fields of Gold, but if it is not too much trouble, I would love to hear about that. Thank you, Dr. Kat.
So Henry V behaves badly in order to make his future good behaviour look better. What an astute political strategy worthy of Machiavelli!
I got Richard II and King John mixed up. I thought he was Richard the Lionheart which would come before King John as John was his brother. Everyone else I got right.
Got all of the monarchs in order.
You ask about the killing of the French prisoners: This followed the slaying by French soldiers of the boys in the baggage. I believe it was partly strategic because Henry thought the French would overwhelm his men but mostly retribution for this heinous act.
Read the play carefully. The boys were killed after Henry decided to kill the prisoners. Brannagh wouldn't have censured the prisoners execution if it had been so 'easily' justified. Not to mention the French civilians he left out to die in front of his lines during a previous siege.
I think the act of killing prisoners was tyrannical but necessary, and by including it, Shakespeare, writing for a very strong Queen, is reminding all 'don't mess with us because at the end of the day, we will protect ourselves'.
As with most writers, we come back to the written to rewrite and alter for completion.📖
Great video, but I think some comment on the fact that parts of Henry V were censored, not unlike Richard II, is warranted.
I switched Richard II and John’s places, mistakenly thinking that Richard II was the son of William the Conqueror,
Got them all!
Not bad for a New Yorker
Also known as the 17th Earl of Oxford.
King John, Richard II,, Henry IV, Henry V, Richard III, Henry VI Henry VIII
Got them all.
You have a beautiful face. You look like the women you've spoke of.
This video shall a good man show his son.
Proud of my 6/6!
I got the first one and the last two~weeak.
Got Richard II and King John swapped but I feel like I did alright as an American :')
Maybe Prince Hal hung out with Falstaff too much?
This is nonsense. The prologue to Act 5 has nothing to do with Essex and his mission to Ireland (which was a notorious failure, not a triumph). It is, in fact, a description of an earlier successful Irish military expedition by Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormond against Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond. 1n 1579, Desmond, allied with both the King of Spain and the Pope, instigated a rebellion against Protestant England. Elizabeth named her cousin Ormond, General of her troops and dispatched him to put down Desmond. It was only in November 1583 that Ormond's men finally captured Desmond in a remote cabin where he'd been hiding. They took the expedient of beheading Desmond on the spot, riding back to their camp and presenting the severed head, on the point of a sword to Ormond. He then sent the head back to England, along with a letter describing what had happened. A letter that Shakespeare was obviously paraphrasing with; 'rebellion broached on his sword.'
Ormond remained in Ireland, tying up loose ends until May of 1584, when he returned to England. So, we have an actual historical event that dates a play with exactitude. Shakespeare finished Henry V between November 1583 and early Spring 1584.
Some people think a man named Henry Neville wrote Shakespeare. He was an ambassador, and part of the “king-making” family. He was highly intelligent, and an excellent judge of human beings; he understood the human condition. Just see Hamlet 🙂. In his politics he understood kings & queens were human like anybody else, and should not be given absolute power. He was for a parliamentary government, which Britain eventually got. He was a man ahead of his time, and for that he ended up in the tower with Southampton.
I placed John and Richard the II correctly, then...Henry VIII. 😶
Dr Kat+ Here is a question for you; Do you think that Shakespeare was a false flag, a pseudonym for the true writer of the plays who wanted to remain anonymous. It has been suggested that frequent candidates such as Christopher Marlowe, Sir Francis Bacon, and Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford were the true writers, eg Shakespeare never traveled, wasn't wealthy enough to afford candles to write his scripts etc etc, but he was a story teller who frequented taverns. What is your opinion?
That would make a great vid!
I wonder if in 300 years or so, if his music is still being sung, if people will say the same thing about Irving Berlin - that no one with no formal education and no musical education could write such a wide range of things with such cultural impact.
She already did that video. In short, she thinks it's bonkers, just as every other sane person does.
I put Richard III in the wrong place. Frustrating, I knew better.
Obligatory comment for the algorithm 😊
yes easy
"Subject to the breath of every fool" Henry V Act IV Scene i. Aren't we just THERE just now, here in the USA !!
we weren’t 2 years ago, but we sure as hell are now
I got the order right but I didn't know the dates
1. John
2. Richard II
3. Henry IV
4. Henry V
5. Henry VI
6. Richard III
7. Henry VIII
My note
Also in the plays, the Neville family have prominent roles.
Shakespeare had a shadow writer. He was not the authentic writer of his plays. He was a fake!!