Love the eloquence of the final speech. The compliments directed towards King James 1 ensures that the plays will be sanctioned and endorsed by the leaders and supporters of the King
I would love to see Henry VIII staged, and I am delighted to see here Fletcher and Shakespeare's version of Katherine's speech alongside her actual speech. Their omissions are interesting, at least, and I have always thought in reading this play that Katherine emerges, if you will, as the sensible heroine. In some sense, she dominates the scene brilliantly. The ending is also interesting and can work only after Henry and Elizabeth's deaths in real life. If we are to enter the play, what are we to imagine are Henry's thoughts about Elizabeth's lifelong virginity? Could Henry even conceive of such a possibility? Thank you, again, Dr. Kat, for another great reading of The Bard. 🙂❤
The most surprising "untruth" to me is the extolling of Elizabeth - at her birth, I'm sure Henry was far from satisfied from having a girl and not a boy. Did anybody actually prophesy over her like this? Would Henry let that go on in the face of his disappointment? I am interested in a story I only heard once, that during the time Henry was trying to divorce Katherine he went to a church service where the priest criticized what he was trying to do very sharply, and prophesied that he, like the infamous Jezebel, would also have the dogs lap up his blood when he was dead - and that in the end, when he died Henry's corpse was in its coffin on a cart outside overnight, and because of the condition of his body even before death, it was already decomposing and leaked out of the coffin and onto the ground, where the dogs lapped it up. A grisly tale which if true would make you pause.
I wonder if Shakespeare really felt that way about Queen Elizabeth. It's really touching actually, because he did not need to be so flattering about her. It's sort of a nice alternative history that Henry is perfectly happy she's a girl, and everyone believes she'll be the perfect ruler. It is funny how they discuss in the play how much they talk about her heir, her first cousin twice removed, though of course they need to flatter James.
could it be "sucking up" to Kind James? he wouldn't have been king if Elizabeth had married and had an heir. Interesting subject. another great video, thanks Dr Kat
It's also noteworthy that this play was performed at the Shakespeare company's winter home, The Black Friars, the very site of Wolsey's trial and Catherine's testimony.
I get the impression this play is trying to capture a sense of prescient, melancholy happiness, partially in terms of making the current and previous reigns seem glorious. Yeah we all know--as did the original audience--the real world events were far more complicated, eventually very cruel and danger-strewn. But it seems to create a halcyon nostalgia, with hardly anyone being evil or villainous, merely flawed. Events sad but human occur, but the most important event--the birth of the queen whom modern historians would one day dub "The Great"--is the focus, before it all went wrong and the tragedies mounted until at last this child came to the throne and made things right once more, even better than they had been. There is even a sense of it having been God's Plan all along, especially in the context of Shakespeare's earlier history plays. Not having read or seen the play in question, I just don't know if it succeeds.
I understand it will be performed, summer of 2024, at the Shakespeare festival in Cedar City, Utah, if anyone wants to check that off their Shakespeare bucket list.
Late to the party here, but I actually had the pleasure of seeing Henry VIII at the Globe Theater back in 2010. Which was the first time it had been staged in that location since it caused the fire that destroyed the original Globe! What was even more brilliant was that Howard Brenton's play Ann Boleyn was running concurrently with Henry VIII and there was much overlap in cast between the two shows. Bring able to see two sides of the story with the two plays was helpful in balancing out the sheer Tudor propaganda that Henry VIII comes across as.
Wow! Like many here, I'd not read Henry VIII or seen it performed (though I have a vague recollection of seeing it in the contents of my Norton). I am under the impression that most of Shakespeare's histories (indeed, if not all of them) were written to please the monarch on the throne at the time. But looking through that lens, what about this play would please James I? It glorifies the woman who, inadvertently or not, had his mother executed. So that reasoning seems to be a dead end. Clearly it is an attempt to rewrite history, as if Anne gave birth to Elizabeth, Katherine conveniently dies, and then Anne and Henry lived happily ever after. It ignores Mary and Edward, as well as all of Henry's other wives. Is it a bit of What-If-tory, as you discussed in another video? Is it an alternate history about what would happen if Henry accepted Elizabeth as his heir and didn't continue to covet a son? Is it a story about what if Henry hadn't had his bout of apparent insanity when he decided to put Anne aside? It sure looks like revisionist history. But, I still ask myself the question: why would such a story please James I? Surely the playwrights didn't just not care what the monarch though?
Perhaps the theatrical community is too superstitious to put on this play due to the Globe fire. After all, don't they insist upon calling "Macbeth" the "Scottish play" based on superstition?
I understood that the reason for the indirect reference insisted upon for" the Scottish play", was that it was always the go to play for the repertory companies, when we had them, should their current production bomb. Therefore it was like wishing the evil eye on their current production, if it was given its proper name.I don't know whether that makes it superstituous or not.
I think it is more likely that it is simply not a very good play! I have actually seen it; not live, but a few decades ago the Beeb worked their way through the entire canon and it was included. I think the sheer fallacy of it, and the fact that it comes across as a total fawning propaganda piece to James 1st is unappealing to modern audiences.. Most of the 'History' plays are horribly inaccurate, but this one doesn't even attempt it. Which makes it all the more odd, as presumably some of the the events it purports to depict were still within living memory, or were still recent history, rather like WW2 is to us now. If we ourselves did not experience them they are there in tales handed down by parents and grandparents, so we feel we can relate to them. So you have to wonder about the playwrights motives. Knowing Shakespeare's love for turning things completely on their head, making people proclaim things that turn out to be the opposite and so on, was the title itself a clue? 'All is True' when clearly Nothing is! Are we missing something? Would the audience of the day have seen it as satire perhaps? This airy fairy 'Happy Ever After' Tale which is completely at odds with the truth?
If play houses were under threat of being closed for a period following the Elizabeth's reign, perhaps this play gave a propagandist boast to glorify the later King James and beyond (using the fame of Elizabeth I ) would show the theatre appropriately biased and loyal to the Crown.
I think alot of people forgive Henrey alot of things because he did the things he did to people I always been fascinated by the Tudors but he seems like as he aged he list his mind I've never been to England but your history fascinates mde
I think this an piece of propaganda. Were these plays written with the encouragement of a benefactor, who might have been King James or a supporter? Will Shakespeare must have been a well received playwright with great reputation at this time. It seems to be partly an ode to a (in retrospect) great ruler, and a cobbled together buttoning on of her virtues and prowess to the current king. I do not think this would make an entertaining play. No convoluted plots, no surprises, no clever romance. If the collaborators were paid to make this PR piece, maybe their heart wasn’t in it, so they made quick and professional work of it and got on with other things.
Shakespeare's patron was Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. He was imprisoned for life by Elizabeth, and released soon after she died by King James.
I'm binge watching your videos until I see them all! Keep up the exemplary work!
Love the eloquence of the final speech.
The compliments directed towards King James 1 ensures that the plays will be sanctioned and endorsed by the leaders and supporters of the King
I would love to see Henry VIII staged, and I am delighted to see here Fletcher and Shakespeare's version of Katherine's speech alongside her actual speech. Their omissions are interesting, at least, and I have always thought in reading this play that Katherine emerges, if you will, as the sensible heroine. In some sense, she dominates the scene brilliantly.
The ending is also interesting and can work only after Henry and Elizabeth's deaths in real life. If we are to enter the play, what are we to imagine are Henry's thoughts about Elizabeth's lifelong virginity? Could Henry even conceive of such a possibility?
Thank you, again, Dr. Kat, for another great reading of The Bard. 🙂❤
What a series of great treats for people who enjoy English history. Enjoying them one by one while "safer at home."
Yes, I would like to see this play.
The most surprising "untruth" to me is the extolling of Elizabeth - at her birth, I'm sure Henry was far from satisfied from having a girl and not a boy. Did anybody actually prophesy over her like this? Would Henry let that go on in the face of his disappointment? I am interested in a story I only heard once, that during the time Henry was trying to divorce Katherine he went to a church service where the priest criticized what he was trying to do very sharply, and prophesied that he, like the infamous Jezebel, would also have the dogs lap up his blood when he was dead - and that in the end, when he died Henry's corpse was in its coffin on a cart outside overnight, and because of the condition of his body even before death, it was already decomposing and leaked out of the coffin and onto the ground, where the dogs lapped it up. A grisly tale which if true would make you pause.
I'd most definitely love to watch this play performed. I haven't watched Kenneth Branagh's film yet (All is True).
I wonder if Shakespeare really felt that way about Queen Elizabeth. It's really touching actually, because he did not need to be so flattering about her. It's sort of a nice alternative history that Henry is perfectly happy she's a girl, and everyone believes she'll be the perfect ruler. It is funny how they discuss in the play how much they talk about her heir, her first cousin twice removed, though of course they need to flatter James.
Never heard of this play. Thanks for posting about it. I'm not remotely superstitious 😁
could it be "sucking up" to Kind James? he wouldn't have been king if Elizabeth had married and had an heir. Interesting subject. another great video, thanks Dr Kat
James wouldn't have been king if Elizabeth had her way, either.
It's also noteworthy that this play was performed at the Shakespeare company's winter home, The Black Friars, the very site of Wolsey's trial and Catherine's testimony.
I would love to see a production of this.
I get the impression this play is trying to capture a sense of prescient, melancholy happiness, partially in terms of making the current and previous reigns seem glorious. Yeah we all know--as did the original audience--the real world events were far more complicated, eventually very cruel and danger-strewn. But it seems to create a halcyon nostalgia, with hardly anyone being evil or villainous, merely flawed. Events sad but human occur, but the most important event--the birth of the queen whom modern historians would one day dub "The Great"--is the focus, before it all went wrong and the tragedies mounted until at last this child came to the throne and made things right once more, even better than they had been. There is even a sense of it having been God's Plan all along, especially in the context of Shakespeare's earlier history plays.
Not having read or seen the play in question, I just don't know if it succeeds.
I understand it will be performed, summer of 2024, at the Shakespeare festival in Cedar City, Utah, if anyone wants to check that off their Shakespeare bucket list.
Late to the party here, but I actually had the pleasure of seeing Henry VIII at the Globe Theater back in 2010. Which was the first time it had been staged in that location since it caused the fire that destroyed the original Globe! What was even more brilliant was that Howard Brenton's play Ann Boleyn was running concurrently with Henry VIII and there was much overlap in cast between the two shows. Bring able to see two sides of the story with the two plays was helpful in balancing out the sheer Tudor propaganda that Henry VIII comes across as.
A good adaptation is waiting for someone's ghost to wreak havoc on Henry VIII. Not Shakespeare but a further adventure.
Has anyone watched the 2018 biopic “All is True”? Is it any good?
Wow! Like many here, I'd not read Henry VIII or seen it performed (though I have a vague recollection of seeing it in the contents of my Norton). I am under the impression that most of Shakespeare's histories (indeed, if not all of them) were written to please the monarch on the throne at the time. But looking through that lens, what about this play would please James I? It glorifies the woman who, inadvertently or not, had his mother executed. So that reasoning seems to be a dead end. Clearly it is an attempt to rewrite history, as if Anne gave birth to Elizabeth, Katherine conveniently dies, and then Anne and Henry lived happily ever after. It ignores Mary and Edward, as well as all of Henry's other wives. Is it a bit of What-If-tory, as you discussed in another video? Is it an alternate history about what would happen if Henry accepted Elizabeth as his heir and didn't continue to covet a son? Is it a story about what if Henry hadn't had his bout of apparent insanity when he decided to put Anne aside? It sure looks like revisionist history. But, I still ask myself the question: why would such a story please James I? Surely the playwrights didn't just not care what the monarch though?
Perhaps Dr Kat & Jamie could review the film All Is True?
Perhaps the theatrical community is too superstitious to put on this play due to the Globe fire. After all, don't they insist upon calling "Macbeth" the "Scottish play" based on superstition?
I understood that the reason for the indirect reference insisted upon for" the Scottish play", was that it was always the go to play for the repertory companies, when we had them, should their current production bomb. Therefore it was like wishing the evil eye on their current production, if it was given its proper name.I don't know whether that makes it superstituous or not.
I think it is more likely that it is simply not a very good play! I have actually seen it; not live, but a few decades ago the Beeb worked their way through the entire canon and it was included. I think the sheer fallacy of it, and the fact that it comes across as a total fawning propaganda piece to James 1st is unappealing to modern audiences.. Most of the 'History' plays are horribly inaccurate, but this one doesn't even attempt it. Which makes it all the more odd, as presumably some of the the events it purports to depict were still within living memory, or were still recent history, rather like WW2 is to us now. If we ourselves did not experience them they are there in tales handed down by parents and grandparents, so we feel we can relate to them. So you have to wonder about the playwrights motives. Knowing Shakespeare's love for turning things completely on their head, making people proclaim things that turn out to be the opposite and so on, was the title itself a clue? 'All is True' when clearly Nothing is! Are we missing something? Would the audience of the day have seen it as satire perhaps? This airy fairy 'Happy Ever After' Tale which is completely at odds with the truth?
If play houses were under threat of being closed for a period following the Elizabeth's reign, perhaps this play gave a propagandist boast to glorify the later King James and beyond (using the fame of Elizabeth I ) would show the theatre appropriately biased and loyal to the Crown.
What about Arden of Faversham? Do you think the partial attribution to Shakespeare is possible?
I think alot of people forgive Henrey alot of things because he did the things he did to people I always been fascinated by the Tudors but he seems like as he aged he list his mind I've never been to England but your history fascinates mde
❤️🇨🇦
I would find it very interesting to see this play. As far as superstition hmmmmm, makes you wonder. 😉
I think this an piece of propaganda. Were these plays written with the encouragement of a benefactor, who might have been King James or a supporter? Will Shakespeare must have been a well received playwright with great reputation at this time. It seems to be partly an ode to a (in retrospect) great ruler, and a cobbled together buttoning on of her virtues and prowess to the current king. I do not think this would make an entertaining play. No convoluted plots, no surprises, no clever romance. If the collaborators were paid to make this PR piece, maybe their heart wasn’t in it, so they made quick and professional work of it and got on with other things.
Shakespeare's patron was Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. He was imprisoned for life by Elizabeth, and released soon after she died by King James.