I’ve written before that Shakespeare helped influence Halloween as we know it- the images of holding skulls, witches chanting over a cauldron, and even ghosts coming back to plague their murderers all have Shakespearean roots. Exhibit A is how these images and tropes can even be found in beloved Halloween costume stores like Spirit Halloween!
If you like creepy Halloween activities and Shakespeare, please sign up for my fully online, fully asynchronous class: “An Immersive Guide To Shakespeare’s Macbeth!” The class features a digital escape room, an interactive quiz, and a special, undead guest!
As you probably know, I love to review children’s adaptations of Shakespeare (whether direct or indirect). “The Lion King,” (Hamlet), “Encanto” (King Lear), and of course, the many adaptations of “Romeo and Juliet,” are mainstays on this website: Gnomio and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With A Kiss, even Disney’s Pocahontas have their basic plot and characters firmly rooted in Verona Italy.
Then one day by chance, I found this book in a local park, and I knew I had to review it!
The Premise
This is a simple re-telling of the story of Shakespeare’s play that focuses on just the young lovers. You feel for these cute little animals and in a way, making them a kitty and a dog smitten with puppy love, makes them more understandable and sympathetic than Shakespeare’s youthful teenagers, who indulge in violent delights without using their human reason.
What It Keeps
The Story
The book keeps the feud between the two families, has the young lovers meet in disguise at a ball, fall in love on a balcony, get married, and amazingly, DIE! Laden still manages to tell the story in a kid-friendly way, though giving it tragic weight.
The Language
The book opens with a rhyming prologue, which, although it isn’t in sonnet form, has the same function as Shakespeare’s prologue- to explain the plot before we see it played out in the book, thus giving the whole story a sense of dramatic irony. Plus, as you can see, Laden also imitates Shakespeare’s love of wordplay with metaphors and puns, (a tale of tails), and alliteration to give the dialogue some wit and effervescence. Reading it gave me giggles like I’d just popped open some champagne.
What it changes: Spoiler alert
All throughout, Laden makes small changes to simplify the plot and remove characters that don’t directly impact the main plot. The characters of Lord/Lady Capulet and Lord/Lady Montegue, The Nurse, Paris, Peter, the servants, and the friars are completely absent, turning an already brief play into an even more compressed story.
Like a lot of animal retellings I’ve seen of this story, the author recasts the human leads as animals that are natural enemies- in this case, cats and dogs. This makes the story easier for kids to understand. As I’ve said before, it’s often difficult to keep track of who belongs to which house in Shakespeare’s version. All you need to know is that Romeo and his brothers are cats and Juliet’s family are dogs.
Funnily enough, my daughter actually complained that the story would’ve been better if Juliet were a cat instead of Romeo, which I agree with for very specific reasons. The character of Tybalt is named after a character from a prose story called “Reynard the Fox,” who had the epithet, Prince of CATS. Mercutio annoys Tybalt by taunting him with this title before challenging him to a duel:
Tybalt: What would you with me? Mercutio: Good Prince of Cats, nothing but one of your nine lives! Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene i.
It would’ve been a funny Shakespeare easter egg to have Juliet and Tybalt be portrayed as cats, but I understand why they went with dogs- Drooliet is a hilarious pun, and having Tybalt be a vicious, rabid dog helps set him up as a fearsome antagonist.
I suppose you’re wondering, how the author keeps Shakespeare’s tragic ending in a children’s book? Well, like Shroedinger’s cat, she manages to make Romeow die and not die at the same time. He gives Drooliet one of his 9 lives, allowing them both to ‘die’ and then come back for a happy ending. It’s a brilliant way to nod at the original, while also keeping the kid-friendly tone.
My Reaction
This book is really fun and very enjoyable for kids, parents, and teachers who want to introduce kids to Shakespeare at an early age!
I was excited from the beginning to hear that the Try guys were going to bring Shakespeare to YouTube in a way that was fun and accessible. My expectations were that they would make fun of the play with care; I was hoping that they wouldn’t mock Shakespeare, (or mock people who like Shakespeare). I was also hoping that they would critique the characters without outright mocking them and find ways to make the play connect to modern audiences. I think they achieved all those things and more!
Zach Kornfield, Eugene Yang, and Keith Habersberger known collectively as “The Try Guys” are a group of friends who seek out new experiences and share them with the world. They thrive on taking themselves out of their comfort zone and learning about the world through experiencing it firsthand in a funny, lighthearted way. As I said before, what could be more adventurous, daring, informative, and out of YouTube’s comfort zone than doing Shakespeare?
In a series of videos they explored Elizabethan clothing, stage combat, learning how to speak Shakespearean verse, and finally on August 10th, 2023, they performed “Romeo and Juliet” live on Youtube, with suggestions from the audience! With this post, I will discuss the evolution from these three videos, to the final show, which I got to see live on YouTube. I will discuss what I think worked, what didn’t, and how this production might influence future Shakespeare productions going forward!
Podcast About the SHow:
My Top Ten Moments:
Background on the Show
The original pitch for the play made it sound like a live YouTube event, but they made it even better by including a voting option where viewers could change some of the action and chose for instance, if they fought with swords or some other object, thus engaging the audience the whole time. This is what made this experience unique, (perhaps more than any other production), and I think in many ways this production could be an inspiration to educators and theater practitioners! My main critcism of the show is that, though it can be enjoyed by almost anybody, it is definitely not suitable for children, and nobody could get away with showing it in a classroom environment.
Costumes and Sets
The set for “Romeo and Juliet,” seems like an ordinary YouTube TV studio, in that it’s fairly small and it does not suggest any particular period. It kind of suggests somewhat of a dream-like environment; there are cardboard cut outs with some clouds, the lighting is warm with a few pink colors . Most of all it reminds me of a fractured fairytale more than classic tragedy, (which I suppose is clever in itself because it sets up that the Try Guys are going to fracture Shakespeare the same way people like the Muppets fractured fairy tales.
The costumes don’t seem as elaborate or historically accurate as the ones in the previous video, which is a shame because it would’ve been really nice to see the Try Guys walk, fight, and dance in the same costumes that they experimented with in the previous video. That said, the costumes certainly are functional within the story. Eugene as Mercutio has a stylish striking black outfit that certainly suggests somebody you don’t want to mess with. Zach as Romeo has an amusing long wig (romantically disheveled of course) and a blue doublet (though I miss the pumpkin pants in the previous video). As in other productions, the Montegues wear blue and the Capulets mostly wear red. I would be surprised if the director had seen the famous Franco Zephirelli film (or at least Gnomio and Juliet).
The director Keith Habersberger also keeps the best costumes for himself both as the Prince and Juliet; he’s wearing a beautiful ordinate gold costume as the Prince and Juliet herself has lovely rose-colored gowns. Even her shift in Act Four is it’s tasteful. I’ll talk more about Keith’s portrayal of Juliet later, but let’s just say that the clothes do not make him look like a man in women’s garb, they make him look like Juliet.
Stage Combat
The stage combat episode is great, and as a Stage Combat junkie myself, I watch a lot of channels like Skalgrim, Forged In Fire, HEMA videos, and of course my own stage combat videos. Consuming this combat content, I know that there are lots of avenues for education and for entertainment watching these 3 guys who have never done sage combat before, try out swords. I was very delighted to see them putter around with swords and then learn a short stage combat scene in which they then put on put their own spin on by improvising a scene where Romeo & Juliet sword fight with a guy who cut the cut in front of them while they were trying to get ice Cream. The video is fun, ludicrous, but also it’s just as informative as videos from the Folger Shakespeare Library.
Unfortunately, The Try Guys didn’t make much use of the swordplay they learned in this video during the final performance. Imagine my disappointment when, during the climactic duel between Tybalt and Mercutio, the audience voted to replace the swords with…something that was definitely NSFW. I’ll discuss this choice in depth later on my podcast but let’s just say it made the training they did in the previous episode seem like a waste of time.
The Cameos
Did you hear about this guy Romeo? He’s the talk of the town
Link Neal from Good Mythical Morning
One aspect of the production that I deeply loved was that instead of doing the whole play, The Try Guys did a 90-minute abridged version using multiple narrators to fill in with bits of exposition and commentary. The Reduced Shakespeare Company did this before in their show, but since The Try Guys are very popular in the YouTube Community, they got a bunch of their fellow Youtubers to be their narrators like Rhett and Link, Smosh Games, Rosario Pansino from Nerdy Nummies, and Mat Pat from Game Theory. It was absolutely delightful to hear more of my favorite YouTubers talk about my favorite writer, each one telling the story with their own brand of humor!
Romeo runs to Friar Laurence, mascara all smeared!
Manny Mua
The Performances:
Finally, let’s talk about the acting in the final performance and how the Try Guys succeded in bringing Shakespeare to You Tube.
Keith Habensburger as Juliet
Keith carries the show as Juliet. As he mentions in the video above, he has performed in Shakespeare before, and his passion for performing shines. It’s actually a bit shocking to see him drop his usual persona as an easy-going funny guy and become a tragic heroine! In addition, he has a clear vision for the character- I suspected that he would probably exploit the comedy of him being a man playing a woman and being taller than Zach and he does in the earlier scenes, but once Tybalt dies, Keith plays Juliet absolutely straight- he is absolutely committed to playing Juliet’s anguish and desperation and it’s really moving to watch!
Eugene As The Nurse/ Mercutio
Eugene was a natural choice for Mercutio- his Try Guys persona is very much the wild card, sometimes friendly and sometimes fierce and he clearly loves Shakespearean language as you can see in the earlier video where he plays Edmund from “King Lear.” Honestly, though, I think his performances in the final play are a bit under-dramatized- I don’t quite know what he was going for as either The Nurse or Mercutio, which might be a result of limited time or lack of direction. That said, he does a good job for having never done Shakespeare professionally before.
Zach as Romeo or “A Bro wearing Hose”
Zach admits in the Shakespeare Acadamy video that he doesn’t “get Shakespeare,” and I get the sense that he doesn’t really like Romeo, so his performance seems like an intentional parody of romantic leading men. Honestly, this is fine. Romeo isn’t my favorite Shakespearean character either, and yes, The Try Guys are treating this as a real show, but at the same time it is still an experiment; they are trying something they wouldn’t normally do, so Zach is dealing with the awkwardness of playing Romeo with the same self-deprecating sense of humor that he uses when baking without a recipe or trying ballet. He knows that he would never get cast as Romeo in real life, so he’s having a laugh while he does it onstage, all the while being the best Romeo he can be.
The Format
One of the biggest challenges any Shakespeare practitioner has to face with a modern audience is the problem of engagement. The age of social media has changed how we consume content- we don’t passively watch anymore, we engage with it, comment on it, share it, and sometimes even manipulate it for ourselves. In Shakespeare’s day, there was no division between actors and audiences so in a way, his plays work well for this kind of live choose-the-outcome YouTube Event and I’m interested to see if it influences future performances going forward. In any case, I’m grateful that I was able to see this fun-frenetic, once-in-a-lifetime evening of live theater!
If you would like to learn Shakespeare like the Try Guys, I have a series of online clases in acting, stage combat, Shakespearean comedies, tragedies, and of course, “Romeo and Juliet.” You can enroll in one of these classes now or schedule one with me by visiting my Outschool.com page:
“Welcome Spirit, How Camest Thou hither?” The sources for Puck
Puck, in medieval English folklore, a malicious fairy or demon. In Old and Middle English the word meant simply “demon.” In Elizabethan lore he was a mischievous, brownielike fairy also called Robin Goodfellow, or Hobgoblin. As one of the leading characters in William Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream, Puck boasts of his pranks of changing shapes, misleading travelers at night, spoiling milk, frightening young girls, and tripping venerable old dames. The Irish pooka, or púca, and the Welsh pwcca are similar household spirits.
Shakespeare also took inspiration from English poet Edmund Spencer, who visited Ireland in the 1590s and adapted the folklore he picked up into his opera The Fairy Queen, which Shakespeare adapted into A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Types of fairies you can “spot” at the Lullymore Park in Ireland:
Puck/Robin’s Dual Nature
The old stories tell that Fairies are magical creatures who live in hollow places in the earth. Some are benevolent and help give rain and pleasant weather to the Earth, Like the king and Queen of the fairies, Oberon and Titania:
And the mazed world, By their [the tides] increase, now knows not which is which: And this same progeny of evils comes From our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original.
— Titania, (Queen of the Faries), A Midsummer Night’s Dream Act II, Scene i.
Titania in this speech shows great concern for nature, humanity, and the planet. She believes it is the responsibility of fairies, particularly herself and her husband Oberon, to control the elements and keep humans and fairies safe. Some fairies, however, are cruel and enjoy playing tricks on mortals, just like Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, or Queen Mab in Romeo and Juliet.
Close reading of Puck’s speech (MND II, i)
Close reading of Puck’s speech (MND II, i)
Close reading of Puck’s speech (MND II, i)
Close reading of Puck’s speech (MND II, i)
Close reading of Puck’s speech (MND II, i)
.
This is a short analysis I created of the tricks Puck plays on people in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, as part of my acting course on Ouschool.com. Note the different ways Puck is portrayed in photos as a satyr, a rotund elf, and sometimes as an almost- demon like figure.
Punishments or contracts with fairies formed a significant part of Goodfellow’s purpose on earth. While he could issue good fortune and support, this was always at the cost of those involved. As Reginald Scot commented, Goodfellow had a ‘standing fee’ of a ‘mess of white bread and milk’, which he expected after supporting housewives with their chores. If his payment was forgotten, Goodfellow was believed to steal from the home that owed him, often stealing grain and milk from the dairy.
Abigail Sparkes, Historic UK.com
Performing Puck
Because Puck is not human, and somewhat ambiguous in the text, an actor can play Puck in many different ways. Generally speaking, actors tend to explore Puck’s attitude toward humans, their love of mischief, and how to translate that physically and vocally
Puck. My mistress with a monster is in love. Near to her close and consecrated bower, While she was in her dull and sleeping hour, A crew of patches, rude mechanicals, Were met together to rehearse a play The shallowest thick-skin of that barren sort, Who Pyramus presented, in their sport Forsook his scene and enter’d in a brake When I did him at this advantage take, An ass’s nole I fixed on his head:
Anon his Thisbe must be answered, And forth my mimic comes. So, at his sight, away his fellows fly; And, at our stamp, here o’er and o’er one falls; He murder cries and help from Athens calls. I led them on in this distracted fear, And left sweet Pyramus translated there: When in that moment, so it came to pass, Titania waked and straightway loved an ass!
This past month, there was a free production of Richard III in New York’s Shakespeare In the Park, starring Danai Gurira as the title character. I have not seen this production, though I wish I had. I enjoyed the actress Ms. Gurrira in such films as “Black Panther,” and would love to see her do Shakespeare. What is more, the concept intrigues me. This project explores themes of toxic masculinity, racial identity, inferiority, and misogyny.
Danai Gurira as Richard III, Shakespeare in the Park, 2024
Unsurprisingly, with so many heady topics in the production, this Richard III is still somewhat controversial. Some right-wing critics dismissed the whole production as a piece of ‘woke propaganda,’ but I feel this is unfair.
When Danai Gurira of Marvel’s “Black Panther” first takes the stage in the title role, the actress has no perceivable hunchback or arm trouble. And yet the dialogue suggesting Richard suffers from a lifelong physical issue (“rudely stamped”) has been kept in. Perhaps we are to use our imaginations. Who knows? We are certainly tempted to close our eyes.
I will not judge this production based on the acting because I haven’t been able to see it. What I will do is take a stance on the validity of the concept. Specifically, I want to ask if this play is a good examination of toxic masculinity and if it would it be worthwhile to see it portrayed by a black woman, as opposed to a white man. The short answer is an emphatical “Yes.”
Richard III is definately an example of toxic masculinity. He is violent, full of hatred, vengeance, and mysogeny. He is constantly insulting women from Lady Anne, Jane Shore, Queen Elizabeth, and even his own mother. In fact, the source of Richard’s toxic attitude is that he blames his mother for his disability and deformity:
Well, say there is no kingdom then for Richard;1635 What other pleasure can the world afford? I'll make my heaven in a lady's lap, And deck my body in gay ornaments, And witch sweet ladies with my words and looks. O miserable thought! and more unlikely1640 Than to accomplish twenty golden crowns! Why, love forswore me in my mother's womb: And, for I should not deal in her soft laws, She did corrupt frail nature with some bribe, To shrink mine arm up like a wither'd shrub;1645 To make an envious mountain on my back, Where sits deformity to mock my body; To shape my legs of an unequal size; To disproportion me in every part, Like to a chaos, or an unlick'd bear-whelp1650 That carries no impression like the dam. And am I then a man to be beloved? O monstrous fault, to harbour such a thought!. 3H6, Act III, Scene i, lines 1635-1653.
Now I should clarify the difference between deformity and disability, which are characteristics that Richard III has as part of his character makeup. According to the Americans With Disabilities Act, a disability is defined as: “A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” This could include paralysis, autism, or any number of congenital or acquired conditions. Richard’s disability is primarily his limp (caused by his unequally shaped limbs), and his withered arm. What’s interesting in this production is that while the title role is played by an able-bodied woman, most of the rest of the cast have actual disabilites. Watch this clip of the famous courtship scene between Richard and Lady Anne, who plays her role in a wheel-chair.
While a disability is a legal term that is recognized by lawyers and governments alike, the term “deformity” is more subjective; it generally refers to any kind of cosmetic imperfection. In Richard III, this applies to Richard’s hump and withered arm.
The Elizabethans thought that deformity was a sign of disfavor from God, and that deformed people were constantly at odds with God and nature, as Francis Bacon puts it in his essay, “On Deformity.”
As deformed people are physically impaired by nature; they, in turn, devoid themselves of ‘natural affection’ by being unmerciful and lacking emotions for others. By doing so, they get their revenge on nature and hence achieve stability.
Richard III has this drive for revenge in spades and I believe it manifests itself as a particularly terrible form of toxic masculinity. Richard definitely wants the crown to make up for his lack of ‘natural affection,’ but he is also especially malevolent towards women.
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days
Seeing a woman play this kind of misogynist dialogue forces the audience to take it out of context and question Richard’s point of view. We see casual misogyny every day, and seeing a woman deliver it is quite illuminating.
Richard’s deformity and Blackness
Another provocative choice by Danai Gurira’s portrayal of Richard is the fact that she plays the role of Richard without the hump or withered arm. She herself explains that for her production, Richard’s perceived deformity, is actually represented by her being a black woman:
He’s dealing with the otherness compared to his family, in terms of not being Caucasian and fair like them.” The word ‘fair’, is used a lot in the play.
Danai Gurira’s
Shakespeare writes Richard as constantly striving to compensate for his deformities by being clever, violent, and eventually, by becoming king. As I wrote before in my review of Othello, for centuries black people have been portrayed as inferior; aberrations of the ‘ideal fair-skinned form’. So, to the Elizabethans, blackness itself was a form of deformity, and the rawness of addressing this uncomfortable fact in this production should be commended.
English people are already trained—and we have scholars like Anthony Barthelemy has talked about this in his book Black Face, Maligned Race, where the image of blackness, as associated with sin, with the devil, all of these things, makes it quite easy to map onto then Black people these kinds of characteristics. Then, those kinds of characteristics allow for the argument that these people are fit to be enslaved. – Dr. Ambereen Dadabhoy, Race and Blackness in Elizabethan England Shakespeare Unlimited: Episode 168
So while I can’t speak to the production’s acting or staging, I will emphatically defend the notion that this production’s concept is valid. Richard III is an example of toxic masculinity through his self-hatred, violence, misogyny, and narcissism. In addition, as I’ve written before, in the Early Modern Period, blackness was considered an aberration or deformity, and seeing it in the person of Richard, with the implicit understanding that black people still face this kind of prejudice today, opens a much-needed dialogue that any production of Shakespeare shouldn’t be afraid to open.
In short, by re-contextualizing Richard’s deformity and disabilities, this production gets to the heart of the play’s moral for our times. The early modern period’s toxic attitudes towards deformity and disability created the Renaissance monster of Richard III. We in the 21st century must examine our own societal prejudices and toxic attitudes so this monster does not come to haunt us in real life.
I am just ecstatic to talk about this year’s hit Broadway Musical Six. It swept the Tonys, and has opened up touring productions across the country, and I JUST GOT TO SEE IT!
This vibrant, clever retelling of Tudor her-story was created by TOBY MARLOW & LUCY MOSS in association with the Chicago Shakespeare Festival. The show is incredibly smart, and creative, and delves into the lives of some fascinating women, re-told as a singing contest with the characters singing their lives for you to judge what it was like being the queen of England and living with the turbulent and fickle Henry VIII.
What really appeals to me in this show is that like Hamilton, the musical takes these six semi-mythical women and tells their story in a way that is fresh and exciting. It bridges the gap between Tudor History and the modern-day by equating being a queen with being a celebrity, with all the drama of ambitious parents, romantic drama, public opinion, and even being exploited and sexualized by a male-dominated society. This comes across in the music, the costumes, the lyrics, and even the lighting!
Why “Six” Slaps
The costumes are brilliant and iconic. Catherine Of Aragon is like a cross between Beyonce, a saint, and a medieval knight. The lighting is incredible! You could tell the whole story using the lighting design as it pulsates, dances, changes into different colors, turns into different shapes, and finally flashes the name of the show in triumphant gold letters.
One particularly brilliant way the music works in “Six” is the fact that it uses the song “Greensleeves” as a motif both musically and thematically. One big theme of the show is how, unlike Henry VIII, most of the history of his six queens is lost and replaced by legends and even songs. The first line of the show is the famous rhyme about their fates: “Divorced. Beheaded. Died. Divorced. Beheaded. Survived.” As the video above helps illustrate, Marlowe and Moss know that most people only know the rhyme about their deaths and the myth that Henry wrote a song about one of them; that their lives are overshadowed by their deaths and the misconceptions that people have written over the years. Howard Ho points out how the song musically forces itself into the first number, “Ex Wives,” but by the end of the show, the six queens break free from these musical bars! You can hear the change of key and notes during this performance at the Tonys, which puts the opening number and closing reprise together.
The Cast of “Six” perform live at the 2021 Tony Awards.
But how do the queens go from “one word in a stupid rhyme,” to a group of powerful, individual queens singing in harmony, without the man who made them famous? That’s what the solo numbers in “Six” do so incredibly well- tell each queen’s solo stories as rocking ballads, hilarious dis-tracks, soulful love songs, and… well stay tuned.
Part II: The Women and Their Queenspirations
1. Catherine of Aragon
Catherine of Aragon was Henry’s first wife and is still universally beloved, even though Henry decided to divorce her. As the epitome of a stand-alone power queen, it makes sense that Six modeled her character, costume, and songs after Beyonce, with a Shakira-inspired Spanish beat for good measure:
My favorite thing about her solo, “No Way” is how the writers paraphrase her real-life speech during the divorce trial in 1529. Below are the lyrics and the real speech:
Alas, Sir, where have I offended you? Or what occasion have you of displeasure, that you intend to put me from you? I take God and all the world to witness that I have been to you a true, humble and obedient wife, ever conformable to your will and pleasure. This twenty years and more I have been your true wife, and whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience.
— Katherine of Aragon, 1529
2. Anne Boleyn
In some ways, the version of Anne Boleyn in “Six” is less a pop version of the real queen and more of a commentary on the nature of celebrity. If you watch the video, you can see how in life she was admired for her beauty and fashion but hated for her comments on Queen Katherine, her scandalous love affairs, and her brash nature. This explains the spiky pop-punk princess look they gave her, (which evidently resonates with many audiences since I saw at least two girls cosplaying as Anne in the audience). Sort of like a celebrity who gets canceled on Twitter or Princess Diana, Anne shows how a person can be undone when they dare challenge an established order, especially the Royal Family.
After the show, I found it a bit weird that they portrayed Anne Boleyn as a jetsetting airhead, but then again she is one of the best-known queens in history, so they can get away with it. In reality, Anne Boleyn was highly educated and a member of an ambitious and social climbing family who basically pushed her to woo Henry. As you can see in this clip from “Anne Of A Thousand Days,” Henry and Anne’s family bullied her constantly to become the King’s mistress after HE ALREADY GOT HER SISTER PREGNANT, so Anne knew that the only way to keep Henry from ruining her life was to convince him to divorce Katherine of Aragon and marry her.
Of course, this strategy didn’t save Anne in the end, which says more about how cruel Henry VIII was, chewing up women and spitting them out in his ravenous quest for a son. So is this an accurate portrayal of Anne’s life? No. Is it fun, ABSOLUTELY!
III. Jane Seymore
I’m more than I seem, or am I?
“Six” The Musical.
This version of Jane Seymore was inspired by Adele, so appropriately, she has a heart-wrenching power ballad about her turbulent relationship with Henry. Sadly, we don’t know much about Jane’s real life, so the song takes some liberties. If you go to the Hampton Court Website, you can actually vote as to whether Jane was a devoted wife or a social climbing gold-digger. Probably the real woman was something even more complicated, though we’ll never know for sure.
IV. Anne of Cleaves
Anne of Cleaves is the funniest part of the show! Many of us have heard the story that Henry divorced Anne after he found her ‘ugly.’ What “Six The Musical” does is amend the story, by pointing out that after he divorced her, Henry gave her a castle and a huge retainer, allowing her to live like a queen, without being married to a king! Accordingly, her song is a Rhianna-style dis track that shows off her awesome lifestyle, and spits in Henry’s stupid face!
As fun as this, rags-to-riches story is, the truth is less fun- Anne was the sister of a German duke, so Henry’s lord Chancellor Thomas Cromwell probably forced Henry to marry her for diplomatic reasons (source: Hampton Court: “Anne of Cleaves”). Naturally, Henry didn’t like being told what to do- I suspect he resented Anne before even meeting her because he didn’t get to pick her himself.
As for whether Anne was actually ugly, the truth is really surprising- Henry actually disguised himself as a peasant during a masked ball when he first courted Anne, and she foundhim repulsive. At the time, Henry was 49 years old, and in very poor health. As such, he was intermittently impotent and blamed his inability to conceive a child with her on her supposed ugliness to save face.
Even though Anne in the show hates Henry, in reality, once the marriage was annulled, Anne and Henry remained good friends for years! She attended his next wedding to Katherine Howard, and, just like in the show, Henry treated her much better after the divorce:
‘YOU SHALL FIND US A PERFECT FRIEND, CONTENT TO REPUTE YOU AS OUR DEAREST SISTER. WE SHALL, WITHIN FIVE OR SIX DAYS …DETERMINE YOUR STATE MINDING TO ENDOW YOU WITH £4000 OF YEARLY REVENUE…YOUR LOVING BROTHER AND FRIEND.’
Henry VIII, 1548, six months after their wedding, when the annullment went through.
V. Katherine Howard
Without question, Katherine Howard is portrayed as the most tragic of Henry’s six wives and her song is a huge sucker punch. The writers never let you forget that Katherine’s first affair was when she was 13, and she died at age 19. Like Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymore, Henry picked Katherine for his queen among his ladies in waiting and her song “All You Wanna Do” satirizes his and many other men’s lustful appetites. The song begins as a raunchy, sexy pop ballad in the vein of Britney Spears’ “Toxic” and “Womanizer” about Katherine Howard’s love affairs, but then devolves into a cry for help, as Katherine confesses how she was abused, used, and manipulated by the men in her life, (including her own cousin Thomas Culpepper) until she was beheaded in 1542. It masterfully satires both Henry’s cruelty and the hypersexualization of teenage pop stars which certainly took its toll on Britney Spears and Ariana Grande, Katherine’s major ‘Queenspirations.’
VI. Katherine Parr
Historically, Katherine Parr had to turn away her fiancee Thomas Seymore (just like Anne Boleyn was previously engaged to Henry Percy) once the king set his eyes on her for his wife, so her song is a sad, soulful Alicia Keys-inspired bittersweet song where she tearfully says goodbye to Thomas to spare his feelings and probably his life.
Not only does this song once again show how Henry’s selfishness and his lust ruined the lives of the women he married, (as well as the men who already wanted to marry them), but it also sets up the main idea of the show:
His-Story overthrown
In the final number, the wives turn the tables on Henry- they have spent centuries being defined by him, but in reality, he is just as much defined by them! Going forward, history should not define these great women as just, “The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth,” but to celebrate their individual lives and contributions to history. Katherine Parr mentions this when she points out that in life, she fought to allow women to be educated, she wrote books, and was a scholar of theology. Historically, Henry and Katherine would argue about religion and he nearly executed her after she disagreed on points of theology, but Katherine kept her life by claiming she was “Not disagreeing with [him], but simply learning from [him].”
I Don’t Need Your Love is sung by Catherine Parr in SIX: The Musical. The first part of the song refers to her love of Thomas Seymour, whom she probably wanted to marry rather than Henry (and did marry after Henry’s death). However, the song also protests at the fact that women are often defined by their relationship with men, rather than as people in their own right. Catherine wants to be remembered for what she did, rather than the men she married or loved.
Katherine Parr, Six.
The final number completes the idea of the ‘historemix’ by having the Six queens/pop stars come up with a re-imagined happy ending for themselves, one that doesn’t include the pain that Henry inflicted on them: Katherine A becomes a singing nun, (like Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act), while Anne Boleyn starts writing lyrics for Shakespeare (which is a fun idea since he does mention “Greensleeves” twice). Jane Seymore forms a band with her many surviving children, Katherine Howard goes solo, and Katherine Parr joins the other queens in a supergroup. It’s not at all historical, but it is a fun and sweet way to put an epilogue on these (mostly) tragic lives.
It’s odd, however, that the show invents an epilogue instead of talking about the six queen’s greatest legacy- Queens Elizabeth and MaryI. For a show that wants to highlight the often-forgotten legacy of these queens, it is an odd oversight. Remember Catherine and Anne gave birth to queens who eventually ruled England without a king. Jane Seymore gave birth to a king, and Catherine Parr helped raise them and restored them to the line of succession- She’s the reason her stepdaughters were able to become queens in the first place.
My issues with the epilogue aside, it is great to see history be recontextualized and shared in such an accessible way. We all know that European history is dominated by the names of white guys- king whoever, duke what’s-his name. To see important women in history be given a voice by a multi-ethnic cast is a great way to make it resonate, and using the metaphor of pop stars works extremely well in this context- these women mostly didn’t choose stardom, but they deserve it for what they went through.
Brava.
Educational links related to the six wives of Henry VIII:
I’m so excited! One of my favorite Youtube channels is doing a series of videos where they try Shakespeare for the first time! Zach Kornfield, Eugene Yang, and Keith Habersberger known collectively as “The Try Guys” are a group of friends who seek out new experiences and share them with the world. They thrive on taking themselves out of their comfort zone and learning about the world through experiencing it firsthand in a funny, lighthearted way.
So, what could be more adventurous, daring, informative, and out of YouTube’s comfort zone than doing Shakespeare? So in a series of videos they are going to explore Elizabethan clothing, stage combat, learning how to speak Shakespearean verse, and finally on August 10th, 2023, they will perform “Romeo and Juliet” live on Youtube, with suggestions from the audience!
This post will be a reaction to the humor and information on Elizabethan clothing from part one of the series with my notes on Elizabethan fashion, and the costumes worn by Shakespeare’s company
Background on Elizabethan Clothing
I’ve written a series of posts about Elizabethan fashions. If you’re unfamiliar with the period, Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603. This was one of the most prosperous and cosmopolitan times in English history and the fashions of the time reflected this.
Report of fashions in proud Italy, Whose manners still our tardy apish nation Limps after in base imitation.
Richard II, Act II, Scene i
Clothing of this period was very hierarchical- if you were lower class, the garments had drab colors, were functional rather than fashionable, and were not tailored for individual people. On the other hand, upper-class people literally wore their wealth and status on their sleeves- clothes were tailor-made, colors were bright and hard to produce, and fashion styles represented the far reach and sophistication of the English court. One way the court proclaimed this was by importing fashions from Italy, as the quote above indicates. This might be one reason why so many of Shakespeare’s plays are set in Italy; the public wanted to see the exotic upper-class fashions in this play set in romantic, sophisticated Italy. In a way, Shakespearean plays were sort of a fashion show in the 16th century.
If they [Elizabethans] saw a onesie, their heads would explode!
Keith
Keith’s remark is referencing the fact that nowadays our clothes are stitched together on the spot by machines. If you buy pants or a shirt, it comes as one complete garment, but this is a luxury the Elizabethans did not have. Costumes came in pieces like ruffled collars, sleeves, skirts, kirtles, foreskirts, etc. All these pieces would need to be assembled by a patient lady or gentleman in waiting, which is why Elizabethan nobles couldn’t get dressed by themselves, as you can see in this graduate thesis video by my friend Anna Gonzales:
Keith Habensburger as Juliet
One of the best parts of the video is Keith trying on various upper-class Elizabethan ladies’ garments from dresses to skirts. The Try Guys have a long history of trying on female garments so in a way, they’re perfectly suited to try Shakespearean costumes.
Keith’s favorite Elizabethan costume piece is the famous neck ruff- a piece of rolled linen that goes around the neck worn by men and women. Ruffs were very popular in the Tudor court, so it became a symbol of Elizabethan fashion.
“A Shirt and a Smock”
In Anna’s thesis, she points out how Elizabethan undergarments came in the form of long shirts for men and a long linen one called a smock for women. In the video, Keith is puzzled by the garments and wonders if it would be at all erotic to see an Elizabethan in their not-at-all revealing shirts or smocks. As Anna points out in her thesis, these garments were worn close to the body, coming into contact with all the sweat and grime of daily life. So NO Keith, it wasn’t sexy to see an Elizabethan in his or her shirt or smock.
“THe Devil Himself Could Invent such stuff”- Elizabethan Corsets.
Every age has a new definition of the ‘ideal silhouette,’ that is, the figure that is most appealing in women that the clothes either create or accentuate. Elizabethan women were expected to have slim waists, small chests and wide hips. This look was accomplished through the use of a corset, which tightened the waist and compressed the chest.
Under the Hood- Farthingale, bum rolls, and petticoats
To create the wider hip look of Elizabethan women, bum rolls tied around the waist, and wooden farthingales created a bell shape for the hips and skirt. On top of that went the petticoat, kirtle, and skirt.
Eugene wears a petticoat on top of his corset and bum roll that is done up with red bows. Zach wears a lace collar that partly covers his head. Eugene’s sleeves were added separately.
Eugene As THe Nurse
Eugene’s clothing as The Nurse, reflects the fact that lower-class people had fewer and fewer fancy options in terms of fabrics, styles, and colors. The costume is a simple linen shirt, a basic corset, and grey clothes. I suspect that The Nurse was also helping Juliet get dressed, like the ladies in this video:
Men’s fashion- Zach as Romeo or “Bros wearing Hose”
Men in this period also wore custom garments- the sleeves were added separately and the pants had to be attached at the points. Unlike women, young men didn’t cover their stockings (hose) and enjoyed showing off the shape of their legs. Stockings were often brightly colored and sometimes padded to make the man wearing it look more muscular.
O ceremony, show me but thy worth! What is thy soul of adoration? Art thou aught else but place, degree and form, Creating awe and fear in other men? Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd Than they in fearing. What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet, But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness, And bid thy ceremony give thee cure! Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out With titles blown from adulation? Will it give place to flexure and low bending? Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee, Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream, That play'st so subtly with a king's repose; I am a king that find thee, and I know 'Tis not the balm, the sceptre and the ball, The sword, the mace, the crown imperial, The intertissued robe of gold and pearl, The farced title running 'fore the king, The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp That beats upon the high shore of this world, No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony Henry V, Act IV, Scene i.
As this quote from Shakespeare's Henry V, there are many different cermonial customs and adornments that the British monarchs have used to adorn and elevate their kings and queens. Today I'm going to compare and contrast King Charles III and his mother Queen Elizabeth II, then I'll compare these coronations with the monarch who lived during most of Shakespeare's life: Queen Elizabeth I.
Part I: Queen Elizabeth II vs. Charles I
All my information for this section comes from this fascinating article from the Washington Post, which compares and contrasts King Charles’ coronation on May 6th, 2022, with his mother’s, which occurred on June 2, 1953:
Both Charles and Elizabeth were anointed with holy oil- an ancient tradition signifying God’s favor. The tradition goes all the way back to the Bible, where the book of First Kings details the procedure of anointing King Solomon:
And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord and have Solomon my son ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon.
And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet there anoint him king over Israel. Then blow the trumpet and say, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ You shall then come up after him, and he shall come and sit on my throne,
1 Kings Chapter 1, Verses 33-35
King George the Third commissioned composer Georg Friedrich Handel (famous for “The Messiah”) to write an anthem for his coronation based on this Biblical passage in 1761 This song has been a tradition during English coronations for the past 300 years, and as you can see in the video below, it was played when King Charles and Queen Elizabeth were privately anointed behind the canopy you see below.
The Scepter
The scepter is called the Sovereign’s Scepter and it is on display in the Tower of London as part of the Crown Jewels. For more information, go to Royal Collection.org:
The ball in this passage refers to the globus crucigeror ‘the orb and the cross.’ This is a symbol of the king’s status as the head of the Church Of England, which began with Elizabeth I’s father, Henry VIII. The orb telegraphs Christ as the true ruler of the world, and the English monarch as his representative on Earth.
The Sword (and) the Mace
A mace used to be a concussive weapon used in battle against knights in shining armor. Since armor is hard to penetrate, medieval warriors tried to cause blunt force trauma and concussion in their enemies using maces. Since those more violent beginnings, the mace has evolved into a symbol of the King’s power and is used at the opening of Parliament. There are three swords that lords used to herald the King during the coronation- the two swords of Justice, and the Curtana or ‘Sword of Mercy,’ so called, because its blade is broken, making it a ceremonial object of peace, rather than a practical weapon.
King Charles’ own sword is called the Sword of State- it is a steel sword gilded with silver, and the handle is wooden, gilded with gold. It symbolizes the monarch’s commitment to knightly virtues, and it is used to create people as knights.
The Crown
St. Edward’s crown is adorned with diamonds, furs, and over 2,000 diamonds! This crown, along with the sword of state, dates back to the 1660s, after the monarchy was briefly abolished, though the crown still has had its share of problems over the centuries, including being stolen!
The Robe(s)
King Charles in his golden robe
Queen Elizabeth II dons the golden Robe Royal
Close up of Elizabeth II in the Robe Royalthe
King Charles in his Robe of State
Elizabeth I in the Robe of State
Queen Camilla in her Robe of State
Much like how during graduation ceremonies people wear special robes to signify the transition from one state of being to another, British monarchs have worn multiple robes to show their apotheosis from a prince to the sovereign head of the country.
The Robe of Estate
The robe of Estate is the long, sumptuous robe of the sovereign; a symbol of his or her wealth. Charles wore his at the end of the ceremony after the crown was placed on his head.
Traditionally, the Robe of Estate is a very specific shade of purple called Tyrian Purple. It is again, a symbol of wealth because it was very labor-intensive and expensive to produce. This is one of the reasons why purple is a color associated with wealth and status:
Left- Royal portrait of Queen Elizabeth in her purple Robe of Estate by Sir Herbert James Gunn. Right- King Charles in his crimson Robe of Estate
Elizabeth’s purple Robe of Estate will now be worn by Queen Camilla, Charles’ wife. It is 6 1/2 meters long, weighs 15 pounds, and took 12 seamstresses 3,500 hours to complete, (source: Historic UK).
Queen Camilla in her Robe of State
THe THrone
The oldest part of the ceremony will without question be the throne- a plain-looking piece of oak that is over 700 years old! St. Edward’s Throne has been part of coronation ceremonies since King Edward I, (aka Edward Longshanks from Braveheart) in around 1200 AD. Surely there is no greater symbol of royal continuity- the monarchs in Shakespeare’s history plays actually sat on this throne. Any king or queen who touches this piece of furniture must get a sense of the ancient traditions of the monarchy.
King Charles III sits on St. Edmund’s throne, holding the scepters.
The Tide of Pomp (Royal Processions)
It’s been a tradition ever since the Middle ages for the new king or queen to travel from their home palace through the county so people can see them on their way to be crowned at Westminster Abbey. Long ago, this was a multi-day journey full of public festivals and entertainment that allowed the whole country to get a rare glimpse of the new monarch. By contrast, King Charles and Queen Camila only traveled 1.3 miles from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.
Image compare of King Charles III and his queen Camilla with his mother and father during Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953.
Part II: Queen Elizabeth the First’s Coronation, January 14th, 1558.
The Procession
After the death of Mary the First, Elizabeth’s sister,
An Account of the Coronation
Like her namesake and the new king, Queen Elizabeth I was crowned at Westminster on January 15, 1558. Unlike them, however, the ceremony was performed in Latin and English by a Catholic bishop. Obviously, since Elizabeth was crowned during the Protestant Reformation, there was a lot of controversy about the liturgy. Some accounts aren’t sure what parts of the Catholic were read, but we do know Elizabeth took the oath, wore a similar golden robe to Charles and Elizabeth II, and was given the balm and scepter just like them. Here is a primary source account from an ambassador from the town of Mantua, Italy:
“The Queen was received under the canopy by the Archbishop and another Bishop, they having previously perfumed her with incense, giving her the holy water and the pax, the choristers singing; then the Earl of Rutland followed her Majesty with a plain naked sword without any point, signifying Ireland, which has never been conquered; then came the Earl of Exeter with the second sword; the third was borne by Viscount Montagu; the Earl of Arundel, having been made Lord Steward and High Constable for that day, carried the fourth (sword) of royal justice, with its gilt scabbard loaded with pearls. The orb was carried by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Marshal, and in advance were knights clad in the ducal fashion, carrying the three crowns, they being the three Kings-at-arms; they bore the three sceptres, with their three crowns of iron, of silver, and of gold on their heads, and in their hands three naked iron swords, signifying the three titles of England, France, and Ireland..”
— Il Schifanoya, royal ambassador from Mantua
‘And whereas your request is that I should continue your good lady and be Queen, be ye ensured that I will be as good unto you as ever Queen was unto her people. No will in me can lack, neither do I trust shall there lack any power. And persuade yourselves that for the safety and quietness of you all I will not spare if need be to spend my blood. God thank you all.’ _Queen Elizabeth I
Book cover for Ian Doescher’s “The Empire Striketh Back,” a Shakespearean parody of Star Wars Episode 5.
Well today is May 4rth, when a lot of people have chosen to celebrate one of the most iconic movies of the 20th century: Star Wars! And why not? The story is full of conflict, introspection, love, change, the conflict between fathers and sons, and occasionally guidance from ghosts. Wait, that sounds familiar- it’s a lot like Shakespeare! Yes, the movie has a lot of parallels with the Shakespearean canon, and I’d like to share some of those similarities here. Below is a post I did for the American Shakespeare Center about how the Star Wars prequels parallel Shakespeare’s history saga of Henry the Sixth:
The Shakespearean Student 