Talk:Richard III (play)

full title?
Is "Life and death of King Richard III" its complete title? --Menchi 03:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No, its full title is The Tragedy of Richard the Third. Or, in the Quarto, it's The tragedy of King Richard the third Containing, his treacherous plots against his brother Clarence: the pittiefull murther of his iunocent [sic] nephewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserued death. The Singing Badger 15:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If this can be sourced, could someone please mention these titles in the articleTimothyJacobson (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't know what Shakespeare titled it or how his company advertised it when they originally staged it. Printers added all sorts of verbiage to the titles of plays when the published them.  It's safe to say that plays really didn't have fixed titles.76.236.153.232 (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Now is the winter...
Is the word "eulogising" correct in there? Methinks it should be "praising", as the alluded person is alive... elpincha 22:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if it is correct, Elpincha, you have the right to change it if you prefer different wording. That's what this place is all about. Deb 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was asking because I am not 100% sure. Some people here have English degrees... not me... elpincha 10:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

clarification
Early in the synopsis section is the phrase, "With little attempt at chronological accuracy (which he professes to despise.)" The "who" is ambiguous. Does Richard despise accuracy or Shakespeare? --Amanaplanacanalpanama 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right it was confusing. I've rewritten. Is that better? AndyJones 08:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tragedy or history sentences...
It seems like this sentence "The play is sometimes interpreted as a tragedy (as it is called in its earliest quarto); however, it more correctly belongs among the histories, as it is does in the First Folio." might have a POV issue. The emphasis is mine. Unless scholarly debate is closed on the issue, stating where it belongs seems to be adhering to a certain POV. I would like to change the second half of the sentence to something like "however, it is more often labeled a history (as is the case in the First Folio)." However, I have no citation stating that such is the case. So the best I can probably do is "The play is sometimes interpreted as a tragedy (as it is called in its earliest quarto), and sometimes as a history (as is the case in the First Folio). It is a brilliant written play, and is great to wathc at the theatres! i advise you to watch it if you are studying it for SATs."

The sentence immediately proceeding this one may also be statement of POV. "It is a Shakespearean attempt to adapt history into theatre."

Thoughts? - ACodispo 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that the sentence "It is a Shakespearean attempt to adapt history into theatre" is unhelpful. The categorization of Shakespearean plays into "histories" and "tragedies" is fairly well defined, though, I'd have thought.  It's not a question of whether the history is accurate; none of his "history" plays are. Deb 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the intro sentence to address ACodispo's concerns, which I share, about the word "correctly"; it's not correct, just normal. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that amendment has been altered. Please discuss here. The log claims "primary source" and "contemporary reference". This argument is clearly flawed in two ways: firstly, the folio is not a contemporary source, as it was prepared and published in 1623, some seven years after the author's death; secondly, the quarto qualifies on both grounds claimed: it is a primary source and it is contemporary, published in 1597 while Shakespeare is still alive. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * regardless - in keeping with numerous discussions on these and other pages, we have adopted the First Folio classifications thru-out. If you want to change that, please build a consensus at the Shakespeare project page.  Until then, I am reverting the change. (First Folio is certainly a contemporary document - quibbling over the authors date of death aside.)  An equally silly quibble would be that Shakespeare's name isn't even ON the quarto! Heck - why not get into who might have actually wrote these works....but I digress... :) Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously - I am just asking you to do your homework better.  This has been well discussed and is currently outlined on the Shakespeare project page.  Howeer, I think you are also being disingenuous in that you attacked the log, but took it out of context.  The log starts with "We follow the First Folio classifications here", then went on to explain that a few reasons.  You ignored the first sentence and attacked the second. I don't know if it's just stubbornness or ownership issues that are in play, but I think you know darn well that the Folio classifications are, by consensus, the ones being used on these pages.  Another point regarding the FF - it clearly states that it has corrected and augmented earlier versions, which it labeled as stolen and/or surreptitious versions. I think the editors of the Sh project are simply taking the FF at its word.  So - again - if you want to change the consensus, feel free, but until you do, the FF classifications should stay. Smatprt (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember something in the Wikipedia guidelines concerning good faith, no? You make many assumptions about my motivations, which are unjustified. I didn't decontextualise your log entry. It reads, in full: "no - not "POV" at all - we follow the First Folio classifications here. Primary source, contemporary reference, etc., etc." I understand you to be offering "primary source" and "contemporary reference" as reasons for "we follow..." Hence my objection to its faulty reasoning, as detailed above--there is nothing disingenuous about engaging with the reasons that you offered. "We follow" is a statement of practice, not a reasoned justification for that practice. Your suggestion that I am motivated by ownership issues is easily dismissed by a quick glance at the article's edit history--I am not aware of having contributed to the article at all (if I did, it was so long ago I've forgotten). Dismissing my concerns over the reasoning behind the removal as "quibbles" fails to address those concerns in any reasonable manner. The reasoning offered about the history of the folio itself, too, is flawed. I assume that you are not suggesting that there was an earlier folio, in which the editorial divisions of genre were authorised by Shakespeare. I'm sure you know that the earlier versions to which the folio refers are individual playhouse sides and quarto editions of individual plays, not a collection arranged by genre. It doesn't follow from the folio assertion that its editorial designations of genre are authorized by the dead author. The POV issue remains: to describe it as a history play in the opening sentence recognizes the critical tradition that follows from the decision of the editors of the folio; it does not indicate the genre in which it was written (necessarily) nor that with which it may have been advertised or understood by its original audience in its first production (again, necessarily). The sentence that follows in the introduction a couple of sentences later seems reasonable, and, I would suggest, could even be stated more firmly/boldly in support of it as a "history" as the normal, usual, common, etc. understanding. But I can see no good reason for having "history" in the first sentence; this seems particularly inappropriate given that it goes on (rightly) to outline the conflict, thus making the article appear inconsistent; this sense of inconsistency is further exacerbated by the presence of the illustrating image from the quarto describing it as a tragedy, in my opinion. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to point you to the inconsistencies internal to the folio itself. Compare: DionysosProteus (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I was already familiar with these images. Clearly the wording "Tragedy" is part of the title shown, and just as clearly, the play is classified as a history. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the classifications that we have standardized to, and built a consensus for - a point you continue to ignore. Now, if you know anything about WP it's that consensus is the ultimate deciding factor.  So, as I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring, simply build a new consensus and you will get no argument from me. (Personally, I believe that the FF is full of misstatements and was more of a marketing tool for the profitable Shakespeare corporation of the early 1600's - but it's not what I (or you) believe that is important, it's what the consensus of editors decides. Dems da rules.) :) Smatprt (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. Content in wikipedia articles are not guided by consensus; quite the opposite (hence the unfairness of the accusations of its truthiness. There may be an agreed format, but we are not discussing format, but content. Kindly point me, too, to the relevant information on the Wikiproject page to which you refer. I see no agreed upon standard for designating a play's genre according to it's listing in the contents page of the folio. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea, I just know it's been discussed on numerous occasions - check the archives, perhaps. Also the talk pages of the plays themselves.  Finally, check with editor AndyJones, as I am pretty sure he has been in on several of these discussions. In the meantime, why don't you just post the debate on the project talk page and get some dialogue going.  It's a good question. (Although I disagree about content disputes not being decided by consensus. I've seen it too many times as the ultimate deciding factor). Moving on now :) Smatprt (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Copying to project page as suggested): Indeed, I too have seen it happen, and objected most vigorously (and often unsuccessfully); but that doesn't change what's meant to happen. I did check the archives. I believe (without going to check again) that you yourself made a single comment once that implied that you thought that was an agreement. I've yet to see any discussion of the issue. There was a discussion about the genre of Cymbeline, and discussion about the arrangement of the template, but that's not the same thing. A lot of discussion, too, about titles of plays, but not genre. Even if we were to agree that the folio should be followed, why should the "Catalogue" page carry more authority than the play's title page in the folio? I know it's pedantic, but I try to take POV seriously. I started lecturing today on a post-grad history of tragedy course, so the issues that our disagreement raises are very much on my mind at the moment; what we mean by "tragic form" turns on what plays, from Aeschylus to the present day, we decide to select as belonging, and this selection has "political" consequences, particularly since tragedy has served such an important role in the West's sense of self, high art, etc., in a way that "histories" just haven't (without implying that they are inconsequential, of course). I'm not arguing that we should call it a tragedy (at least not yet... reserving the right ;), merely that we should tell it like it is... DionysosProteus (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see my name taken in vain above, so I suppose I ought to comment. I think you really are making far too much of a meal out of this. Richard III is clearly one of Shakespeare's history plays. It has been widely classified in that way by many, many, many writers ever since the first folio did so nearly 400 years ago. Yes, statements like "sometimes interpreted as a tragedy [but] more correctly belongs among the histories" have POV problems. It's very obvious that the play is both a tragedy and a history: the terms aren't mutually exclusive. Of course the lead sentence should call it a history, with a link to Shakespearean history. AndyJones (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Andy wholeheartedly on this. Regarding your other comments - Yes, I have made several comments on this, but no, I did not make a lone comment implying an agreement was in place that was not -(if that is what you are saying - you are rather unclear). In any case, there have indeed been numerous discussions regarding titles, templates, and genres all of which were resolved by a reliance on the FF. Winter's Tale, I believe was another. And you yourself noted Cymbeline as a genre discussion. But back to Richard - I believe the lead does indeed tell it like it is. Most all scholarly research calls Richard a history. So I still think we should stick with that in the opening sentence. On that note, do you know of any researcher or academic that has labled it a tragedy instead? (Also agree with Andy that it is both a tragedy and a history, and personally I think Henry IV is both a comedy and a history!) Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Article moves
Before attempting to move an article as heavily-edited as this one, please go through the Requested moves procedure (and also check the article naming conventions!). Deb 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

R.D. McLean
I removed this text from the article, since most of the information belongs on a page for R.D. McLean (if verified). R.D. McLean, noted American Shakespearean actor whose real name was R.D. Shepherd and who left Shepherdstown WV in 1911 to pursue a career in the theater in Hollywood, CA, portrayed King Richard III at the Westwood, CA, Theater in 1925. Dylan Thurston 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think maybe you could have left the image and the name and date of the actor -- since the article includes stuff about other actors. Deb 12:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?
Honestly isn't a spoiler warning for Richard III a bit odd?
 * Richard III is a work of fiction. There are millions of people in the world who don't know the ending. Deb 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

no other encyclopedia article on a Shakespeare play has spoiler warnings. One can also reasonably assume a plot discription in a section titled synopsis.
 * Which encylopedia were you reading, that had spoiler warnings on other articles but not Shakespeare's? AndyJones 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in general (especially in classic and older literature) should not be used in an encylopedia article, but this article is about Shakespeare and one of his works, so I just used that as a general statement.


 * We certainly shouldn't place these unnecessary warnings on the article, and especially not directly following a heading that clearly says "Synopsis", "Plot", or something else that tells the reader that the plot is about to be discussed. If for no other reason, then because it would be redundant, and insults the intelligence of the reader. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't only for the intelligent. It is for those who want to learn. I can well imagine someone who is about to go and see this play in the theatre looking up our article to find out roughly what it's about and being disappointed to find the kind of blow-by-blow account given here. Deb 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article is more than enough to provide an idea of "roughly what it's about". Omitting the ending or providing spoiler warnings is absurd, especially since the play is based on history. There's not spoiler warnings on the article for the real Richard III. 24.22.53.24 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warnings have now been discontinued from Wikipedia--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Structure
I had not even started reading the article when I noticed the Characters section rudely interrupted the article. Surely this list can be relegated to the end of the article or it can be made into less of a tedious list? Perhaps if it were restructured, the list might observe the niceties expected by readers (division into major and minor characters, for example). RedRabbit1983 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Why not do it? Deb 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is beyond my capacity. I prefer just to complain. RedRabbit1983 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I changed my mind. RedRabbit1983 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
I deleted useless sections. Don't worry: no one will notice they're gone. RedRabbit1983 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please visit the shakespeare project discussion page. If you want to delete entire sections, it would be better to discuss there. We have a consensus on a format for all the SH plays. (Trivia is out, so I let that edit stand, although it's better to try to incorporate relevent information in the appropriate catagories.) Cultural references are in, but we have been encouraged to turn those lists into prose.Smatprt 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence, but the fact that a Shakespeare project exists does not obviate the need to make the article readable, nor does it have any status in terms of forcing editors to comply with a given format. Deb 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence taken and no one is suggesting that any group can force (or enforce) anything. I hope you join the discussions at the project page simply to avoid having the same discussion on numerous pages. Smatprt 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but one would hope that editors would take their ideas and concerns there so we can improve the outline. As of yet it's still in the works. Wrad 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest removing Cultural References from the outline so that we are not forced to endure it here. RedRabbit1983 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the best things about the project is the ability to discuss changes and formats that will work for all of the Sh plays. Can we move this discussion there and consider RedRabbit's proposal to delete all cultural references? i think we'd all rather have 1 good discussion instead of 37 individual ones. Smatprt 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted that the cultural references section is uncited, so I have added citation tags. Naturally, on a list of individual unrelated things, it is necessary to have citations on each one; it is very easy for rumors, misinterpretations, and so forth to slip in. --Aquillion (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed most of these tags where you are disputing a fact that can only be verified by seeing the primary source, and cannot be proved by a third party citation. Either the stated usages are true or they are not true. To challenge them you merely need to either remove them straight away and see if they are re-added, or request clarification here, or go and check for yourself. Tagging is pointless for these cases. I have left some where additional info would be helpful, such as an episode title or some other clarification. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

why the play is cut
I would like to point out that Shakespeare originally intended the play to be a sequel to the Henry VI trilogy and expected the audience to know who Queen Margaret was, why Elizabeth was unpopular, and what everybody's prior criminal record was. That's not true for modern audiences, so the play needs to be edited to make some of the background clearer in performance, either by cutting backwards references or incorporating scenes from the trilogy. Thus McLellan's "Fascist 30s version" shows the murders of Herny VI and his son (from the end of the trilogy), and many versions leave out Queen Margeret's scenes. The famous ad-lib "Off with his head-- so much for Buckingham!" was intended to replace a long speech about Buckingham's guilt in the earlier plays. It's not just because of length that the play gets cut in performance. CharlesTheBold 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Why not add this to the article? Deb 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Richardthird.jpg
Image:Richardthird.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Daniel as Source?
I deleted the suggestion that Samuel Daniel's _The Civil Wars_ might have been a source for R3; Daniel's poem wasn't published until 1595--too late to be a source for the play. Daniel is usually regarded as a possible source for Shakespeare's later history plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.61.73 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Language plays a large part in Richard III, as it does in many of William Shakespeare’s plays.
Language plays a large part in Richard III, as it does in many of William Shakespeare’s plays. What, really? Language, eh! Who'd have thought that about a work of literature? Language plays a large part. Wow! Isn't that a bit like saying wood plays a large part in oak trees? Or that water plays a large part in oceans? What else are Shakespeare's plays made of, except language? I particularly love the idea that language plays a large part in "many" of Shakespeare's plays. Which are the exceptions? Which are the plays of Shakespeare in which language does not play a large part? Did he write anything for mime artists or for the silent screen? Language, oi!

Joking aside, is there something meaningful in this sentence that I'm missing? I've no criticism of the recent grammatical correction, but a grammatically correct vacuous sentence is still vacuous. Is there any reason I can't remove it? AndyJones (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Language is not language which alters when it alteration finds... Wrad (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it means the use of language and linguistic devices (such as metaphors, similes, etc.) play a large part in the play, although Shakespeare uses such techniques in all his plays (I think?). DineshAdv (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters
Am I right in thinking this piece has more characters than any other Shakespeare play? TimothyJacobson (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarence
"only Clarence and Richard III die on-stage". I disagree with this statement. Clarence's actual death happens offstage--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this? There are stage directions for the stabbing...

Here's the text from the first Quarto, 1597:

Come thou on my side, and intreat for me,

A begging Prince, what begger pitties not?

I thus, and thus: if this wil not serue,

He stabs him.

Ile chop thee in the malmesey But, in the next roome.

A bloudy deede, and desperately performd,

And from the first Folio, 1623 Come thou on my side, and intreate for mee,

A begging Prince, what begger pitties not.

Looke behinde you, my Lord.

Take that, and that, if all this will not do,

Stabs him.

Ile drowne you in the Malmesey-But within.

Exit.

A bloody deed, and desperately dispatcht:

--75.71.16.252 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts
Should it be made clear on the character lists which characters appear (and in some cases, only appear) as ghosts? --TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tautologous
"After Hamlet, it is the second longest play". Is this phrase tautologous. I believe the word "second" is un-necessary. Unless I hear otherwise by the end of next week, I'll remove that word. (Likewise, if I don't hear otherwise, I will remove the phrase about Clarence dying onstage; see above)--TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both your suggestions. Deb (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deb. I've now made the amendments. --TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The True Tragedy of Richard III
The anonymous play The True Tragedy of Richard III and its relation to Richard III might merit a few sentences in the Sources section. Budding Journalist 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Thomas Keene in Richard III 1884 Poster.png
The caption just says that "many key scenes" are depicted. Can someone identify what those scenes are? I was planning to put this as POTD soon and it would nice to have some details. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Keene in Richard III 1884 Poster.png to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Thomas Keene in Richard III 1884 Poster.png will be appearing as picture of the day on August 7, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Literary Characters that resemble Richard III.
One character in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is an obvious (more benevolent) version of King Richard. He's called Tyrion Lannister.

Maybe a new section after the movies section?

188.174.198.210 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's trivia, really, isn't it? Deb (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 6.1 Film
Hello,

In section 6.1 Film, there is no mention of the movie Anonymous. In this movie a part of (so the movie says) Richard the third is played.

For the clarity the following will be a spoiler:

Even though the movie contains historical innacuracies. There is no mention of the truthness of the play (political time frame and figures, entire text or not?)as well as the connection between Richard and [|Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury].

I, unfortunately never read the play, so until I do, would someone, who has the knowledge and seen the movie, be willing to share it with us?

Thanks

Delita.h (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your link is bad. You don't combine hard links (with full http) with shortened titles. Only do the latter with wikilinks. What you want is Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury.
 * Are you asking about the historical link between Richard III and Robert Cecil?? As far as I know, no established ones. Oxfordians (people who support the idea that Devere, the Earl of Oxford wrote the play) believe that the play has modeled Richard III's character on Oxford's cousin, Robert Cecil, rather than on the historical Richard. Beyond that, I don't believe there is any connection between RC and R3. Cecil is certainly not a character in the play.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

the play of Richard 111
We should always bear in mind, when reading SHAKESPEARE's play's that he is mentioning historical figures but is not being true to history. Reichsmarschal GOERING said it so well when answering his indictment at the Nuremberg Trials that the winners will always be the judges and the vanquished the accused.

SHAKESPEARE can best be described, in my opinion, as a TUDOR boot licker.

Richard,Duke of GLOUCESTER, later King Richard III { 1483-85 }, was a capable and loyal administrator and soldier for his brother King Edward IV { 1461 - 83 } and no hunchback tyrant. He and his brother, George, Duke of CLARENCE, married sisters, Ann and Isobel, daughters of their cousin Richard NEVILLE, Earl of WARWICK and Richard and Ann deeply loved each other, unlike as depicted in the play where she despises him. Richard was distraught when Ann died of Consumption, the same disease that also killed Isobel. Richard's and Ann's son, Edward, pre-deceased them, thus leaving Richard with no direct heir.

The main point of my writing is to correct the error that Elizabeth of YORK, daughter of Edward IV, was Queen Consort to Richard. She was not. It was suggested to Richard that he marry his niece after Ann died so to take her out of the reach of Henry TUDOR, the future Henry VII, who swore to marry her to back his pretensions to the crown. Richard did not entertain the ideas however and Elizabeth did become TUDOR's Queen.

Roger DESHON, Toowoomba, Queensland, AUSTRALIA   Insidivs Fvngvs (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well spotted! Looks like this error was introduced by User:Bertaut when he redid the character list in April.  I've now fixed it. Deb (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hunchback
Can anyone refer me to anywhere in the text of the play that Richard is referred to as a hunchback? So far I have found
 * bunchback'd
 * lump of foul deformity
 * Deformed
 * Unfinish’d
 * rudely stamp'd

but not hunchback. Deb (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This edition calls him a "bunch-backed toad", but this source quotes "hunch-backed toad". It may be that the explanation is in this source, which says "hunched-backed" is in the Second quarto but "bunch-backed" in the First Folio. DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've put something into the main Richard III article to (I trust) reflect that information. In due course I can see us having to give this article an overhaul as well Deb (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hastings / pursuivant
The page currently states:


 * The pursuivant is identified as Hastings only in the quartos; in the Folio text he is referred to as "sirrah".

But in my text, the Pursuivant and Hastings have dialogue together. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:2874:10:A534:BE30:42C5:407B (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Television
'And soon ... Benedict Cummerbach...' needs updating/having definite dates added. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adaptations and cultural references
While I suppose it's allright for these items to be an incoherent ragbag rather than ordered encyclopedic text, why can they not at the very least be in chronological order? --Clifford Mill (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Shakespeare write 'son((ne) of York' rather than 'sun of York'
If you look at the first folio it says 'son'. When I edited the page to this effect it was changed back to 'sun'. I'm fairly new to this so go easy. Hawthornbush (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. Apparently, the First Folio prints the phrase as "son of Yorke", and the earlier First Quarto has "sonne of Yorke." I don't think the spelling "sun of York" appeared until the much later (Nicholas Rowe) edition in 1709? Personally I think the pun works either way round. But which edition are we supposed to use? Surely, the quote given in the article should have a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "what Shakespeare wrote", because he didn't publish it himself. The people who edited it for printing were presumably going on what they heard actors say on stage, therefore there is no correct answer to this. Deb (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The play was written before the establishment of standardized spelling, in those days people merely spelled words as they thought they sounded therefore "sonne" could mean could just as easily mean a male child (son) or the celestial orb (sun). Reading the full passage in context with the various references to summer, winter, and clouds is seems clear that Shakespeare's intent was that the literal spoken meaning here is "sun", and the veiled entendre of the pun is "son". Therefor the literal spelling is the appropriate one in written text using modern spelling. This has been the consensus of scholars for centuries. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A convincing argument. A similar pun appears in Act I, Scene 2 of Hamlet: "Not so, my lord; I am too much i' the sun." But I still think a source text should be given here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - a source would prevent future edit-warring. Deb (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. Obviously I need to do a lot more research on this matter! I can't believe all Shakespeare's content came from 'people writing down what they heard' Hawthornbush (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - but a lot of it did. Did you see this recent TV documentary? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gv5zy Unfortunately not available any more, but the page gives a bit of background info. Deb (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discount tents
The widely circulating "Now is the discount of our winter tents" is missing at Richard III (play). It's certainly more notable than the Family Guy or Red Dwarf episodes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What's that? An advert or something? Deb (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * e.g. ., . So kind of an advertisement. Or possibly a cultural alignment of the planets in terms of popular trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Illustration
The newly added image File:RichardIII.png is described at the upload page as " Illustration for Richard III by William Shakespeare" and "own work" from "January 2005". Why is this notable? It seems to be just someone's own personal idea of what some kind of abstract advertising poster, for a production that's not clearly set in any given period, might look like. Shouldn't we stick with actual commercial posters which have a sourced connection with well-known productions? There is summary of where this has come from. There is no more at Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which production did this advertise? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Freellance has kindly now added "2005 production ... at The Cassius Carter Centre Stage in San Diego, CA." I wonder is there any source for that? If so, it might usefully be added in the caption, and/or at the Discussion Page or Description for the image at File:RichardIII.png. I'm guessing this was the original artwork, as it has no production details on it, perhaps for copyright reasons. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)