William Shakespeare’s Richard III and in TNT’sWill threatricalize English history.  Both the play and television series depict a historical figure, but the way this is done caters more to their contemporary audiences. For Richard III this involves not only affirming his suspected villainy for Elizabethans, but both playing into it and inviting the audience to come along and watch his plots unfold as co-conspirators. Still, there is no question that even if portrayed by an actor or production as sympathetic, in his actions Richard III is evil. It would likely be approved of by his Elizabethan audience that Richard should be portrayed as deformed and immoral and that the Tudor dynasty that ends the War of the Roses should be a happy ending that ushers in better times on account of the fact the audience members were living in that present Tudor dynasty. This also would likely align with the perspective of the Great Chain of Being, a notion many Elizabethans subscribed to and something that is depicted in many of Shakespeare’s other plays. While Edward IV did take the throne for himself, being the oldest York, he was still the person who after conquering was supposed to ascend. If he perished, Edward Prince of Wales, his son, should have been his successor. Richard’s killing of others in line, such as his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and usurping the throne for himself is a flagrant violation of this God-ordained hierarchy and thus when Richmond takes the throne from Richard, order is restored.

Will depicts a London that is wild, raunchy, and likely not entirely true to the real Elizabethan London. Though London likely wasn’t as conservative as some period pieces, particularly older ones, may depict it, this almost punk-rock London is portrayed as intense and bohemian, somewhere not quite safe, but full of art, excitement, and potential. The trailer features modern music with a heavy bass and an encounter between Will and Alice Burbage that undoubtedly leads to sex. The addition of the theory that Shakespeare was a closeted Catholic could also speak to the contemporary audience viewing the show, particularly due to the fact the show came from the United States, not England. In 2017 when the show premiered, the U.S. was and still is facing religious turmoil. Earlier in that year, Trump enacted an executive order that effectively banned those from Muslim dominant countries from coming to the U.S. Even while the show was running its first season, a white supremacist rally occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, with attendees chanting things like “Jews will not replace us” and one even injuring and killing counter-protesters with his car. A London that is hostile to Shakespeare’s religion is something contemporary Americans could recognize if not personally relate to.

In this way, it can be argued that when one is theatricalizing history, one is taking meaning from it that aligns with the cultural values of the contemporary society in which the author lives, rather than the history itself. This is because history cannot truly be known at all; while it is possible to know basic facts, even ones’ personal account of an event in their own life could vary greatly from another present. Because of this, when theatricalizing history, it often makes sense even to handle it in a way that makes sense to modern audiences of the era in which the dramatizing is taking place.

janeeyreofmanderley:

A production of Richard III ending by Richard’s blood flowing towards a white rose that grows on the battlefield, turning some petals red.

Henry Tudor sees it, picks it up and takes it with him….

sassyandclassy94:

Henry V; Edward IV; Richard III; Henry VII

julio-claudian-saberface:

‘About the murder–the murder of those two boys–isn’t it odd that no one talks of it?’

‘How do you mean: no one talks of it?’

'These last three days I’ve been going through contemporary papers: letters and what not. And no one mentions them at all.’

Dominic Mancini: Am I a joke to you? 

(did you ever know of anyone who was dragged out of sanctuary? The man who did that would be excommunicated–and Richard was a very good son of Holy Church)

Edmund Beaufort: Am I a joke to you?

'Where would one have to go to meet a woman who became matey with the murderer of her two boys?’

Richard Grey: Am I a joke to you? 

richmond-rex:

annebrontesrequiem:

richmond-rex:

I’m sorry, but this is the most embarrassing fake Q&A I’ve ever seen a novelist publish on their website

I may be a Richard III enthusiast but if I see one more lukewarm take about blah blah Shakespeare forced by Elizabeth I to write RichardIII as evil because of some political ploy I’m throwing them in a lake

This is not the first time I’ve seen them compare Tudor propaganda to fake news and it just makes me wonder whether they know anything about Early Modern England at all? First, there were no big media outlets nor any effective means of mass communication to brainwash the population. Second, why did Elizabeth I even need to blacken Richard III’s name? There were no Plantagenets around to claim the throne, her dynasty was in fact on its way out and all possible successors descended from Henry VII, so it’s not like there were any practical reasons to boost the dynasty’s legitimacy. Thirdly, the usual authors they claim to have been pure Tudor minions, Polydore Vergil and Thomas More, both got in trouble with Henry VIII so they were clearly very capable of expressing their own thoughts and opinions.

They insist on a conspiracy theory that verges on anti-intellectualism and disregards everything about actual Tudor history.

Also, one of the reasons Thomas More left his history unfinished and it only circulated in manuscript among elites is likely due to his fears it was too politically subversive, particularly when discussing a Duke of Buckingham. Not only that, More came from a Yorkist family and may well have met Elizabeth Shore.

“Richard III was the rightful king!!1!” My brother in Christ you are an atheist republican this is not a hill for u to die on