Talk:Thomas of Woodstock (play)

message: Changing "Shakespeare's Richard II, Part Two" to "Shakespeare's Richard II".  The title of Shakespeare's play is Richard II, not Richard II, Part Two.  If it becomes accepted that this play is by Shakespeare, then perhaps people will begin calling it part two...until then, the correct title ought to be used. Andyandy68 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I think it's a mistake to make the main title of this article "Richard II, part 1," when (in spite of the current claim that it's the scholars' preferred term) "Thomas of Woodstock" is the one that is almost always actually used in reference to it.  I just did a Google book search on "Richard II, part 1" or "part one" and got back just 4 references.  "Thomas of Woodstock" (with the word drama  thrown into the search to eliminate references to the historical personage) comes back with 314 references.  Thomas of Woodstock is what this article should properly be called. Right now, it's trying way too hard to tie it to Shakespeare's cart.  69.227.126.241 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - "Thomas of Woodstock" seems most appropriate.  Explain the rest in the article itself. Smatprt (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I have been bold and renamed the page and as many links as I can find.Smatprt (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I would love to find a credible pastiche ending to Woodstock (or whatever we are calling it).  But I am baffled to read the Hampshire Shakespeare Company's, apparently contest-winning, performed conclusion, which - without getting into the content - seems while wrapping up a verse play to follow no rules of scansion.
I have just re-read Corbin & Sedge's edition.  I query why their notes equate Lapoole with Michael de la Pole rather than his brother who really was Governor of Calais.  (Given of course that the play kind of superimposes the 1380s on the 1390s.)  In fact who Lapoole really is is Thomas Mowbray, if we in any way read Woodstock as a prequel to Shakespeare's play.
I just wonder, in view of discussion of Gloucester's dramatic character being influenced by the Good Duke Humphrey of Henry VI, Part Two (ironic in both cases), whether the Suffolk of that play, and the hostile quibbling on the family name of Pool(e), may not have influenced the play's identification of the earlier Duke's assassin.
Rogersansom (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hampshire Shakespeare Company's Pastiche Ending

message: I've provisionally deleted this statement which involves living persons, as there appears to be an ongoing debate on Hardy Cook's list as to whether the facts as stated are accurate:
>blockquote>This prompted Egan to offer Elliott £1000 if he (Egan) could not prove Shakespeare's authorship—a wager that was accepted in 2010. Egan and Elliott agreed to settle the bet by referring the issue to a panel of three Shakespeare scholars. The panel issued their opinion on 29 August 2011, unequivocally rejecting Egan's attribution and determining that Elliott had won the bet. http://shaksper.net/documents/doc_download/347-egan-v-elliott.</blockquote>
It may be that the entire statement involving Hardy Cook's list should be deleted from the article, and that a reliable published source for Ward Elliot's results substituted, if Elliott's results have been published. NinaGreen (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisional deletion of material on living persons 

message: This is currently in :Category:Shakespearean histories. While I am aware of the authorship debates, at the moment the view that Shakespeare wrote it is at best a minority one, so is it really appropriate for this to be in the category? Dunarc (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Shakespearean histories