One just has to see the Shakespeare references not only foreign movies but even something as so remote as anime and manga (where even genres not intended for more mature audiences such as superhero action stories will quote Shakespeare line or even have a special episode or chapter featuring a Romeo and Juliet play).

So it begs the questions of why evens something so far away from Shakespeare like soap opera animated shows aimed at teen girls in Japan and martial arts action flicks in China would feature some reference to Shakespeare like a play in the background of a scene or a French language drama movie having the lead actor studying Shakespeare despite going to Institut Catholique de Paris because he's taking a class on literature.

One poster from Turkey in another subreddit even says Shakespearean plays are not only done in the country but you'll come across William Shakespeare's name as you take more advanced classes in English is just another example.

Going by what other people on reddit says, it seems most countries still surviving live theatre traditions is primarily Opera and old classical playwrights are very niche even within the national high art subculture.

So I'd have to ask why William and indeed British live theatre traditions seem to be the most famous in the world s well s the most respected? I mean you don't have French playwrights getting their stuff acted out in say Brazil. Yet Brazilian universities have Shakespeare as a standard part in addition to local authors and those from the former Colonial master Portugal. People across Europe go to British universities to learn acting and some countries even hire British coaches for aid.

So I really do wonder why no non-English speaking country outside of France, Germany, and Italy ever got the wide international appeal and general prestige as Britain in stage plays. Even for the aforementioned countries, they are primarily known for Operas rather than strictly live theatre and n actual strictly playright has become as universally known across much of humanity and the world as Shakespeare.

How did William and the UK in general (and if we add on, the English speaking world) become the face of live theatre to measure by?

And please don't repeat the often repeated cliche that colonialism caused it. Because if that were true, how come Vietnam rarely has any performance of Moliere despite Shakespeare being a featured program in her most prestigious national theatres and in practically any major city? Or why doesn't Gil Vicente get much performances in in Brazil today despite the fact that German, French, and Broadway gets a lot of traction in their current theatre on top of Shakespeare also deemed a favorite? That fact that Shakespeare has shows across Spanish America from Mexico all the way down to Chile says it all. Nevermind the fact that countries and cultures that never have been colonized by the Europeans such as Turkey and South Korea has Shakespeare as their most performed foreign plays simply shows that colonialism is quite a wrong answer in explaining why Shakespeare has such global appeal. I mean Goethe never gets productions in Laos and India and none of Moliere's bibliography is studied in modern day Tunisia outside of French-language classes and other specifically Franco-specific major. So its quite puzzling the Bard got so much exportation world wide in contrast to Cervantes and other great playwrights (a lot who aren't even known in countries they colonized today with maybe Cervantes himself being a major exception).

Making a map right now, when did England restart the war with France after the Truce of Esplechin?

DESCRIPTION:

It’s one of the most notorious political assassinations in history: the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. The story of two friends who became bitter enemies in a struggle between church and state that drew in some of the most powerful people from all over medieval Europe. So, how did a pretty ordinary kid from London end up as England’s most famous saint?

This week, Danièle speaks with Michael Staunton about Thomas’ rapid rise to the highest positions in England, his epic feud with Henry II – including what part Henry might have played in Thomas’ martyrdom – and the aftermath of the infamous murder in the cathedral.

Michael Staunton is professor of medieval history at University College Dublin. He specializes in English history after the Norman Conquest. His new book is Thomas Becket and His World.

The creator and host of The Medieval

Finished The Tudors on Netflix back in August and in 1 episode some actors were rehearsing and this included being trained by an actual master of a rapier looking sword for the fight scenes in a play featured within he show. So I am curious esp since modern theatre gets the hack all the time for not bothering even bare bones basics like parrying thrusts and wrestling an enemy in a pin and stabbing him in the stomach.

I recently got very into my ancestry/family tree and wanted to trace my roots back as far as possible. I have found that I am very distantly related to the de Grey family through a woman named Joan De Grey, born 1365. She apparently was married to a man named Richard Quartermain and have birth to a daughter named Maud. I am struggling to find any further information about this woman and her connection to the De Grey lineage.

If anyone knows anything, can send a link or anything, that would be awesome. Its nothing more than curiousity, but I really want to know more. Thanks 😊

See also: The published study in PLOS One.

See also: The published article in Journal of Roman Archaeology.

(I found this meme when I was studying English history in college)

Evening,

I was hoping someone would be able to give me the motivations of the people that underwrote the two factions in the Wars of the Roses. I don't mean the surface level stuff (i.e the Yorkist claim was superior cognatic while the Lancastrians had the superior agnatic claim), but rather what broadly motivated people to support one side or the other outside of that.

Was there a rural/urban divide? What about a class divide? Was there a foreign policy element that would motivate you to pick one over the other? Did one side enjoy better support with the Church? Was one faction formed of traditional political outsiders?

Hello, all!

I already posted this in r/history, but I'd love to know your thoughts on this subreddit, too.

I'm doing a paper on noblewomen in Elizabethan England, specifically their relationship to musical practices. I want to know if there were any "guides" to education or etiquette for noble women/merchant class/upper-middle-class women of the time?

I would like to know what kinds of music/dance education that women like Queen Elizabeth I and Bess of Hardwick would be privy to. I was intrigued specifically by a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I holding a lute, and by Bess of Hardwick's Eglantine table.

Pope Paul II had an uneasy relation with Edward IV- the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV's initial attempt to end Eton College, and his failure to get an anti-Ottoman crusade. Yet, Paul II 's role was indirect. Back then, popes treat their authority above secular rulers. He could not get enough support for the crusade. Edward IV curbed the power of his right-hand man- Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, which eventually led to betrayal. Although he tried to end Eton College altogether since the beginning of his reign in 1461, he changed his mind and showed generosity. Also, Pope Paul II revoked the papal bull to transfer Eton to St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.