[nickcarraway]

Interesting theory, but as far as I know Henry VII was dead more than 50 years before Shakespeare was born.
Now, it’s true, Shakespeare might have been including things that would make Queen Elizabeth and King James I happy. To openly make them unhappy may not have been a good idea. But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so. And there’s a good case to be made Shakespeare thought those kinds of things to be trivia, to what he considered his real art. You make hims sound like some kind of spokesman for the Tudors.

[JCBreckenridge]

He was a shill for the Tudors. Richard III had nothing to gain by killing those boys in the Tower. Henry VII had everything to gain.

[MustKnowHistory]

Read “Truth is the daughter of Time” by Josephine Tey. The Tudor propaganda machine had to ensure that the Tudors were the legitimate rulers of England.

[SES1066]

But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so. [Shakespeare]

Ah, but what if he (the author of most of the plays) was really the Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) or alternatively, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)? Was the author subversive or 'recusant' (abstaining from attending the [Anglican] state church)?

Sorry just cannot resist, it helps me cope with my current angst over the world stage by remembering those past raging controversies that once ignite and destroyed! Perspective helps us better cope with our current difficulties after all.

[miss marmelstein]

Shakespeare relied on a book about Richard the Third by Thomas More. It was More who helped destroy Richard’s reputation. Some say inadvertantly (his book might have been a satire) or deliberately to help solidify the kingdom of the Tudors. It was never published but found upon his death.

I’ve heard that Richard’s body has already been identified at Leicester University. There is also a rumor that he was buried with a piece of jewelry that identifies him as king.

[Oztrich Boy]

Interesting theory, but as far as I know Henry VII was dead more than 50 years before Shakespeare was born. Now, it’s true, Shakespeare might have been including things that would make Queen Elizabeth and King James I happy. To openly make them unhappy may not have been a good idea. But, check it out, there are a lot of people who think that he was being subversive, if not openly so.

Sunstitute Sir Thomas More (who wrote the book Shakspear adapted for the stage) for Shakspear.

IN the opening sentence of More's Richard III, he gives precise age of death for Edward IV (a near-contempory and hardly obscure individual) which is totally wrong - the opening sentence! (trust nothing herein).