The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2734 Tuesday, 4 December 2001
[1] From: Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 2001 08:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.2711 Re: Succession
[2] From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 2001 11:04:21 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 12.2711 Re: Succession
[3] From: Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 2001 18:34:55 -0000
Subj: Princes in the Tower
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karen Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 2001 08:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.2711 Re: Succession
Comment: Re: SHK 12.2711 Re: Succession
> I know the thread is about Hamlet but I can't let
> this go by. Too many
> inaccurate history books and Shakespeare,
> notwithstanding, Richard III
> did not kill his nephews. This has been proven
> satisfactorily, "beyond
> reasonable doubt", many times.
Can you help us by providing citations/sources for this?
> Nor did he kill Clarence. King Edward IV had
> Clarence murdered and
> almost certainly the princes were killed at the
> instigation of the Duke of Buckingham
Has this been 'proven satisfactorily, "beyond reasonable doubt"'?
Cheers,
Karen
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 2001 11:04:21 -0600
Subject: 12.2711 Re: Succession
Comment: Re: SHK 12.2711 Re: Succession
Without being excessively repetitious of many sound (and some unsound)
responses, I hope I can clarify what's up in *Hamlet*.
The kingship is clearly to be thought of as elective, just how remains
obscure (as well it might). Hamlet says that it
