Talk:Richard II (play)

message: I think this is an excellent article on Richard II. I just think it could benefit from using footnotes connecting the existing citations to non-plot based areas of the article, such as the Historical Context section. While I've heard the Elizabeth quotations before, for example, it would be beneficial to see where the quotations were pulled from so those less familiar would be able to investigate the material further. I'm not doubting the information; I just think someone more familiar to the references than I could go through and footnote the sources to make this article better.--Trentsketch (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources/Footnotes

message: The Arden Shakespeare copy of Richard II, spells Green and Scroop with an E on the end.  Does it matter which is used?  --TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors use the spellings of the First Folio (a page from which is illustrated in the article) and these have the e for Scroope and Greene. This isn't an infallible starting point, however: for example, "Bushy" often appears there as "Bushie", which is never used.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Had wondered whether the lack of "e" was an americanism --TimothyJacobson (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spellings

message: I see a contradiction here. In "Structure and language", the article says "not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king.", suggesting that Richard II was lacking these qualities. Later, in the fourth paragraph, we read that "Richard's character as a man who likes to analyze situations rather than act upon them." It seems to me that here Richard is presented as a man possessing intellect, since he is able to analyze situations. You don't use bloodline to do that. So, does anyone have any clue what's going on here? --Alexander (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I did a minimal edit, changing 'production' to 'project', as the word was misleading.  I should have done more really.  The project was known as The BBC Shakespeare, not The Shakespeare Plays.
And I doubt whether Gielgud really put himself on the map with his first Richard in 1929.  The Old Vic was very unfashionable then.  It was surely his modern Richard in "Richard of Bordeaux", in the West End, that changed everything.
Rogersansom (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance

message: Is this the same work as "The Life and Death of Richard the Second"? If same, which title is the "official" one? --KpoT (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the article's lead image: "The Life and Death of Richard the Second". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why isn't this article given the real full title instead of a short name? --KpoT (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because  "article titles are based on the ...name... most frequently used" and "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones" --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I've just read a fascinating online piece by Eliot Cohen, published on 5 October this year in The Atlantic, under the title 'The Feckless King
The president’s fall has come, and it has a Shakespearean flavor': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/trump-shakespeare/616612/. Cohen argues that there are some striking similarities between Trump and the way that Shakespeare develops the character of Richard II. The Shakespearean comparison has become even more relevant now that Trump has lost the election, and his refusal to concede defeat. I am wondering whether there might be some space to reference this interpretation within this article on the play? Perhaps a mention of contemporary applications of Richard II? I would be interested to hear what other editors think. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard II and Donald Trump 

message: This article is very good indeed, and motivates me to suggest an improvement:-
The statement "Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verse,..." is not quite accurate, and needs amending to:
"Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written in rhyming verse, whereas normally Shakespeare writes mostly in blank verse,  iambic pentameters (five beats)."
Plays like Romeo and Juliet likewise have immortal rhyming verse.Andysoh (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare writes on blank verse normally