|
Prince Hal in the News Again |
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0096 Tuesday, 18 January 2005
[1] From: Stephen C. Rose <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Jan 2005 09:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
[2] From: Abigail Quart <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Jan 2005 15:36:58 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen C. Rose <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Jan 2005 09:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
Comment: Re: SHK 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
The Prince Hal of yore went downhill when he attained Kingly status, not
unlike others one might name.
Best, S
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abigail Quart <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 17 Jan 2005 15:36:58 -0500
Subject: 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
Comment: RE: SHK 16.0084 Prince Hal in the News Again
President Bush is not Prince Hal. He's more RIII of the "smile and be a
villain" ilk. Also, RIII had a habit of photo op moments with people
about to be offed that is very Georgish. If George puts an arm around
you for a camera shot, your funding is about to be cut. And wasn't RIII
a usurper, too?
Prince Harry's not Hal either. Hal didn't blame Daddy for getting rid of
Mommy.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|