Ralph Fiennes

have ticket to see the new West End production this afternoon and was looking forward to it until I read the Guardian review that says the production is book ended by references to the reinternment of our king!
We spend years trying to make people realise that the real man and Shakespeare's villain are entirely different, and this idiot director tried to be clever by tying the two together!
Will it never end for poor Richard?
Don't know if I want to travel up to London just to be made angry by some idiot's thoughtlessness and stupidity!
I think letters will be written!
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet

Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.
Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

I saw that earlier this year when Robert Sheehan played him. This 28 year old Irish actor is by far and away the best Richard I have ever seen, Shakespeare's Richard of course!Utterly mesmerising, and totally unforgettable.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet


On 19 Jun 2016, at 18:44, Gilda Elise gildaevf@... [] <> wrote:

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.

Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

I do wish the Society would spend less time on Shakespeare and more time actively refuting the constant stream of books by 'historians' claiming that Richard seized the throne and victimised poor EW and Rivers! The Woodvilles were guilty of high treason. There was no precedent whatsoever for a Dowager Queen and her brothers to control a king during his minority. And the reason is of course that kings married foreigners - imagine Henry VI's Protector being the Dauphin! What was Richard supposed to do sit back and let them go ahead?
The trouble is what colours them are modern attitudes towards the rights of mothers. It wasn't like that in 1483. And it emphasises yet again what a dreadful break from convention the Woodville marriage actually was. My guess is that Tudor chroniclers have dumbed this down because of its implications for EOY and hence their own dynasty. H
From: "Gilda Elise gildaevf@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 June 2016, 18:44
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.
Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

HilaryThe problem is we cannot ignore Shakespeare, as his play is most people's point of reference initially to our Richard. When a big star actor is attached, in this case two big stars, AND the production uses the discovery of the real Richard's remains to bookend a production of Shakespeare's fiction it grabs the attention of the ignorant and makes them think there is a connection! Tying in fiction with the real Richard is ugly, dangerous, and unfair, and needs attacking, not ignoring.Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I do wish the Society would spend less time on Shakespeare and more time actively refuting the constant stream of books by 'historians' claiming that Richard seized the throne and victimised poor EW and Rivers! The Woodvilles were guilty of high treason. There was no precedent whatsoever for a Dowager Queen and her brothers to control a king during his minority. And the reason is of course that kings married foreigners - imagine Henry VI's Protector being the Dauphin! What was Richard supposed to do sit back and let them go ahead?
The trouble is what colours them are modern attitudes towards the rights of mothers. It wasn't like that in 1483. And it emphasises yet again what a dreadful break from convention the Woodville marriage actually was. My guess is that Tudor chroniclers have dumbed this down because of its implications for EOY and hence their own dynasty. H
From: "Gilda Elise gildaevf@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 June 2016, 18:44
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.
Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

Paul, I haven't seen your original email because for some reason (perhaps because of your middle name which has happened with other people) it keeps going into my trash and was wiped before I could read it. I found this there now - I do look for you!Shakespeare is still very much a niche market and those who watch him usually have the sense to realise it's fiction. There are lots of dangerous historians who quote More (and Philippa Langley); they rarely quote Shakespeare. BBC have just issued a commemorative booklet a year on from Richard's burial. We have Philippa saying she was upset because he was indeed a hunchback. We have others saying he seized the throne (not a mention of TR) and that he was a drinker who liked a good time.I agree tying in fiction with Richard is dangerous and needs attacking. But tying in so-called fact is even worse because a whole generation of new scholars will believe it. I just wish the Society would have a PR person who attacks it all but doesn't make us look like eccentric whingers! So I think we're really singing off the same hymn-sheet. H (who thinks BC will gain more Richard 'fans' because he was good and fiction sometimes makes us want to find out the truth)gooit. From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016, 11:30
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes



HilaryThe problem is we cannot ignore Shakespeare, as his play is most people's point of reference initially to our Richard. When a big star actor is attached, in this case two big stars, AND the production uses the discovery of the real Richard's remains to bookend a production of Shakespeare's fiction it grabs the attention of the ignorant and makes them think there is a connection! Tying in fiction with the real Richard is ugly, dangerous, and unfair, and needs attacking, not ignoring.Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I do wish the Society would spend less time on Shakespeare and more time actively refuting the constant stream of books by 'historians' claiming that Richard seized the throne and victimised poor EW and Rivers! The Woodvilles were guilty of high treason. There was no precedent whatsoever for a Dowager Queen and her brothers to control a king during his minority. And the reason is of course that kings married foreigners - imagine Henry VI's Protector being the Dauphin! What was Richard supposed to do sit back and let them go ahead?
The trouble is what colours them are modern attitudes towards the rights of mothers. It wasn't like that in 1483. And it emphasises yet again what a dreadful break from convention the Woodville marriage actually was. My guess is that Tudor chroniclers have dumbed this down because of its implications for EOY and hence their own dynasty. H
From: "Gilda Elise gildaevf@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 June 2016, 18:44
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.
Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J

Hilary, that was beautifully stated. A Public Relations person, or at the very least one paid professional spokesperson, would be wonderful for the Society. A united front and one clear and precise statement would be a great step forward. Trying to combat hundreds of years of conjecture and bold faced lies is a mammoth and perhaps impossible task. The many who make their living writing fiction cloaked in history, not to mention the machine of the Royal Family, do their best to keep fact from becoming the norm. Thanks to all of you who study and research the subject.
On Jun 23, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, I haven't seen your original email because for some reason (perhaps because of your middle name which has happened with other people) it keeps going into my trash and was wiped before I could read it. I found this there now - I do look for you! Shakespeare is still very much a niche market and those who watch him usually have the sense to realise it's fiction. There are lots of dangerous historians who quote More (and Philippa Langley); they rarely quote Shakespeare. BBC have just issued a commemorative booklet a year on from Richard's burial. We have Philippa saying she was upset because he was indeed a hunchback. We have others saying he seized the throne (not a mention of TR) and that he was a drinker who liked a good time. I agree tying in fiction with Richard is dangerous and needs attacking. But tying in so-called fact is even worse because a whole generation of new scholars will believe it. I just wish the Society would have a PR person who attacks it all but doesn't make us look like eccentric whingers! So I think we're really singing off the same hymn-sheet. H (who thinks BC will gain more Richard 'fans' because he was good and fiction sometimes makes us want to find out the truth) gooit. From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016, 11:30
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes



Hilary The problem is we cannot ignore Shakespeare, as his play is most people's point of reference initially to our Richard. When a big star actor is attached, in this case two big stars, AND the production uses the discovery of the real Richard's remains to bookend a production of Shakespeare's fiction it grabs the attention of the ignorant and makes them think there is a connection! Tying in fiction with the real Richard is ugly, dangerous, and unfair, and needs attacking, not ignoring. Paul

Richard Liveth Yet


On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I do wish the Society would spend less time on Shakespeare and more time actively refuting the constant stream of books by 'historians' claiming that Richard seized the throne and victimised poor EW and Rivers! The Woodvilles were guilty of high treason. There was no precedent whatsoever for a Dowager Queen and her brothers to control a king during his minority. And the reason is of course that kings married foreigners - imagine Henry VI's Protector being the Dauphin! What was Richard supposed to do sit back and let them go ahead?
The trouble is what colours them are modern attitudes towards the rights of mothers. It wasn't like that in 1483. And it emphasises yet again what a dreadful break from convention the Woodville marriage actually was. My guess is that Tudor chroniclers have dumbed this down because of its implications for EOY and hence their own dynasty. H
From: "Gilda Elise gildaevf@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 19 June 2016, 18:44
Subject: Re: Ralph Fiennes

What I'd love to see is a production where Richard is played by a young man.
Gilda


On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


Good luck with that. Given that this is the 500th anniversary of the year Shakespeare died, almost every troop that does Shakespeare seems to have decided to piggyback on the reinterment last year & simply must perform that play. My Google Alerts have a new one several times a week, it seems.

What I don't understand is why the Society itself promotes these productions. The latest something done by military veterans. No matter how worthy the cause or the group doing the production, Shakespeare really has nothing to do with the Society's aims. It should be working, as you suggest Paul, to place as much distance as possible between the real man & the Shakespearean caricature.

A J