Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part Three--Summary and Discussion

[@caroles5502]

Thank you so much for this. You did such a great job of telling the story of this INSANE play!

[@clairesstitchingcorner8910]

These videos are brilliant I’m working my way through the complete works and the videos just help me work out what’s going on when I get a little lost with the language

[@Nancenotes]

Wonderful! That’s what they’re for.

[@GaryCurtis-t5w]

Exactly. Me too.

[@GaryCurtis-t5w]

Lovely. Informative, helpful and entertaining.

[@danielflores9792]

Entertaining summary!

[@mila.smiles6772]

this is a little bit old but you're really engaging! i have difficulty reading and really needed to know the plot, so you're saving my life! thanks so much!

[@Nancenotes]

You’re welcome. Glad I could help.

[@Laocoon283]

I love how the very first thing Edward does when he becomes king is propositions the very first female he sees lmao. Basically sums up male ambition.

[@yiquanawalkb4run26]

fractal history reflections brought me to the story in our time of what lies behind the veil, your presentation is really helpful, humorous and enlightening, thank you

[@Nancenotes]

Thank you!

[@tomservo75]

Also interesting you didn't talk about the "Morning's War" speech, you mentioned about Henry VI's transformation

[@meanderingbicyclist8318]

So great. Thanks for this. I feel like after about a dozen attempts I’m finally starting to have at least a foggy idea of what is going on in the Henry VI plays. :-)

[@isabellaaguado462]

love these

[@Nancenotes]

Thank you so much!

[@dzonliner1745]

Thank you

[@tomservo75]

Glad you mentioned the transformation of Richard, because one thing that puzzled me was at what point did he decide that "Damn it all I'm going to be king no matter what!" That speech does seem to me to come out of nowhere, and I suspect that this transformation did not suddenly begin just with Edward's hasty marriage. If he was hiding his intention at that point, he may have been hiding it long before that scene. In the Hollow Crown adaptation, young Richard witnesses the murder of Edmund his brother, so just like Clifford seeing his father's death that might have hardened his heart. My theory is that the transformation began possibly as far back as the killing of his father and brother. He would have loyally supported his father Richard Duke of York as king, but once he was killed and he saw that Edward was mis-managing his kingship he made up his mind he had to take the throne for himself.

[@Nancenotes]

Excellent. I think your theory makes a lot of sense. Also, love the MST3000 ref in your username.

[@nicoleroth3127]

Please keep in mind, that this is just a play and that Shakespeare greatly condensed the timeline of the events, which warps ones perception greatly. Fact and fiction, time and events are jumbled up to make great entertainment, but aren't actual history. In reality, more than twenty years passed between Richard of York being killed and Richard of Gloucester becoming king. At the time of his father's death, he would've been 8 years old, at the time Edward IV got married 12. And the real Richard was known for his loyalty towards his eldest brother other than George of Clarence, the other York-brother. It's not quite fathomable that someone can put on a show for over twenty years, from the time he was still a child, without the mask slipping at one point or another. At the time Richard supposedly killed Somerset in Henry VI, Part 2, he would've been two. So, as a character arch for Richard in the plays, Shakespeare did a great job, but he is very unreliable when it comes to the real history. He wrote entertainment, after all, and fantastic entertainment for sure, what he didn't do was produce documentaries.

[@tomservo75]

@@nicoleroth3127 Of course, I"m only talking about within the "universe" of the play itself. In the real history, Richard's decline into tyranny was much more sudden and reactionary.

[@mrbannon0]

I thought Henry VI 2 was good, but this kicks ass. Richard/Duke of Gloster is the best and so evil!

[@aaronjones6503]

700 year spoiler alert on that Richard III comment 😂😂

[@Nancenotes]

Yeah, although Shakespeare wrote this Henriad first (Henry VI 1, Henry VI 2, Henry VI 3, Richard III), they are actually sequels to his later Henriad (Richard II, Henry IV 1, Henry IV 2, Henry V). More or less like the order of the Star Wars Saga. Incidentally, one of Shakespeare’s most obscure plays is an even earlier prequel, Edward III, which comes before Richard II, and has interesting parallels to Henry V.

[@aaronjones6503]

His histories that is, the Henryverse if you will

[@Nancenotes]

Yes! I’m totally going to steal “Henryverse” and start using it!

[@Nancenotes]

But also don’t forget Shakespeare’s outlier History plays: the tedious kiss-up play Henry VIII, the underrated King John, and the very obscure Sir Thomas More.

[@aaronjones6503]

@@Nancenotes it’s all yours lol. And awesome, thank you, I feel as though you are my guide through the mind of a madman, lol.

[@nicoleroth3127]

May I just point out, that it's the Wars (plural!) of the Roses, not the War of the Roses. - Sorry, can't help being a history nerd, and that's a particular pet-peeve of mine. 🤷‍♀️ That said, while I've read most of Shakespeare's plays, your recap really brought back to mind, why I am not at all fond of Shakespeare's history plays. - As said, I'm a complete history nerd, and while I also like literature (including Shakespeare's other works), the jumbling up of timeline and events drive me crazy! - Especially, because they have so much influence when it comes to people's education about history. The problem really is, that Shakespeare was so good at what he was doing - writing such gripping entertainment. But unfortunately that is what people remember most. But it might be interesting for you to know, to give just one example of what I'm on about, that at the 1. Battle of St.Albans, where this Somerset was killed (anotherone was also killed later on, also in battle, so not a murder either), neither Edward nor Richard were there, and for obvious reasons - Edward would've been 13 and Richard 2, most likely still wearing nappies and throwing the odd tantrum like all toddlers do. That aside, your recap was fantastic, and your enthusiasm obvious! That I simply don't like Shakespeare's history plays, does not take away from that. 👍 P.S. Yes, Prince Edward, Henry VI's son was a boy of around 7 when Richard of York was proclaimed Henry's heir and with that much too young to raise an army. Magret, however, rallied people around herself in her son's name. And also, there is evidence of contemporary rumours, that Edward wasn't the son of Henry, but they suggest Somerset as the potential father... - With so many things, when it comes to that particular timeperiod, that has to be taken with a grain of salt, as the York-line would've been greatly interested in delegitamising the boy. But, of course, it could've been true. Who knows? 🤷‍♀️ P.P.S. And Shakespeare strikes again... - York's son killed at the battle of Wakefield was his second-oldest son Edmund, not his youngest (Richard is the youngest surviving child!) and while Edmund was only 17, he was fully trained as a knight at that point and had actively joined his father on this campaign. Again, to add a little historical perspective, Edward IV was 18 when he fought the Battle of Towton a couple of months later, Edward of Lancaster 17 at the Battle of Tewkesbury ten years later, and Richard 18 when he fought for the first time at the Battle of Barnet. So, Edmund, albeit young, wouldn't have been considered too young to fight. - Get why Shakespeare drives me up the wall?

[@Nancenotes]

I’m sure it drives you crazy! As an English teacher, I’m often annoyed at how Disney and other entertainment giants ruin history and old classic works of literature. Shakespeare’s take is obviously inconsistent, even internally, so I can see why the contradictions he makes for plot and story are annoying to you. As an American with a mediocre public education in history, my personal study of Shakespeare is about all I know about the Wars of the Roses in the way Hamilton might be the best glimpse many young people get into early U.S. history and politics. I vacillate between being glad for any familiarity and a grimace that the details are inaccurate and sensational. Thanks for sharing your expertise and shedding more light on the history!

[@nicoleroth3127]

@@Nancenotes Thank you for your kind reply! I'm not sure whether it's going to be a ground for concern or relief, but the education systems in the West seem to gradually decline everywhere, especially post-Covid. If it ever was any good to begin with, that is, I'm not so sure anymore. And it's quite common, that only the history of the country one lives in, is taught there. It's the same in Germany, the UK, and France also, I believe, with the exception of ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt which is universally taught. American history is only mentioned on a sideline in Germany - which is where I am from. And thinking about it, that wasn't during history class, but English lessons, when for one term we touched on American English instead of the usual British English that is generally taught here. So, absolutely no shame there. If it's any comfort, my very limited knowledge about American History adds up to basically Zero and a Gone with the Wind. And oh yes... - What the heck did Disney do to the Hunchback of Notre Dame? Or Sleeping Beauty? Or Rapunzel? Or Cinderella? Or...- well, almost all of the others that I can think of. Admittedly though, most stories wouldn't have been suitable for children in their original version, but that begs the question, why they chose them to begin with. In short, I completely get, why that would be pretty annoying for someone who loves literature as dearly as you obviously do.