Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: June ::
Re: James and Elizabeth
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1131  Thursday, 1 June 2000.

[1]     From:   Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 May 2000 11:53:03 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1111 James and Elizabeth

[2]     From:   Florence Amit <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 31 May 2000 20:05:28 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1123 Re: James and Elizabeth


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 May 2000 11:53:03 -0400
Subject: 11.1111 James and Elizabeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1111 James and Elizabeth

Elizabeth had reigned for half a century. Good, bad, or winking at
corruption, she was the known world to Englishmen.

Was there relief to know who her successor was? Sure. "A male king with
a family" sounds perfect. Make that a Protestant male king and that's
where a little nervous indigestion sets in.

Do all the available documents say, whoopee, we've got James coming to
rule us? I'll bet they do. Would you risk a negative comment falling
into anybody's hands? Here's  a man coming to rule a kingdom he never so
much as set foot in. All he knows, really, is that it's a bigger, better
deal than Scotland, and they beheaded his mother. His Catholic mother.

Was there ever an orphan raised to the cold comfort of duty who did not
idealize the mother he never knew? The mother who would come to him if
only she could? His was imprisoned in England. England was the nation
depriving little King James VI of his mother.  Did the strict
Presbyterians raising this child tell him how terrible she was? She
murdered his dad, whored around, fled to England to plot against
Elizabeth, and followed Papism. Did they tell him how fortunate he was
never to be contaminated by her? How grateful he should be to them for
saving him from her?

Was he grateful?

Looming large among his captors, excuse me, rescuers and guardians, were
the Ruthvens. When he was 16 (and what teenager doesn't love being made
to feel helpless), they kidnapped him again. Scant years before assuming
the British throne, the grown-up James went before the Scottish
parliament to explain how a trifling number of Ruthvens ended up dead.
Self-defense, he insisted. They were trying to kidnap him again.
(Perhaps some Ruthven family tradition?) The English had no knowledge of
this unsettling episode? Nobody in England felt the smallest qualm about
a teensy tendency toward vengeance in James? Nobody?

Makes no sense to me.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 31 May 2000 20:05:28 +0000
Subject: 11.1123 Re: James and Elizabeth
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1123 Re: James and Elizabeth

To Mr. Lockett,

Regarding the Hebrew: coming generations will reveal what you certainly
do not know and I know somewhat.

Regarding Latin, I do not know at all. For schooling me I thank you. But
the word He-bona contains two elements, that given an elementary
awareness of spoken European tongues - provides an unmistakable
connotation. You do not like the untidy way that I have arrived at this?
Your privilege. I think it means something.

Florence Amit
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.