Talk:King's Men (playing company)

message: Wasn't the King's Men the London company of Lord Strange, also known as Ferdinando Stanley the 5th Earl of Derby?
I believe it was. BPK, 12/12/05.
Regarding the proposed merger, I would tend to disagree. The periods in which the company were the Lord Chamberlain's Men and the King's Men were two distinct phases in the group's history, and in light of the numerous mergers, breakups, changes in patrons and renamings of all the Elizabethan/Jacobean playing companies, retaining separate articles for each named group will help alleviate confusion. Besides, the Lord Chamberlain's Men is a less ambiguous name than the King's Men (there were a number of companies bearing the latter name over time), and hence potentially easier for a reader to find.
Any perceived duplication between the two articles should be alleviated as each is developed and its separate history and succession of members elucidated. BPK, 12/12/05.
:I agree, for the reasons given above. The Singing Badger 17:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger in over two months, I'm assuming it's a dead issue and am removing the merger flag. BPK 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge proposal was made again in July 2009, with the discussion taking place on the comment page of the Lord Chamberlaind's Men article. Since there has been no comment defending the proposed merger (other than the original proposal itself), and no comment on the matter of any sort in four months (since September 2009), I am again assuming it is a dead issue, and am once again removing the merger flag. BPK (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: This is a trivial arguement.  As long as these articles are linked and clearly state that one group came from the other what difference does it make? 
If it ain't broke, don't f*** it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.37.111 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Matter 

message: Is there a source for all the recorded performances of the King's Men and their itinerary when they went on tour? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performances and itinerary source? 

message: There's no introduction of the Globe Theatre into the article.  The first Globe was built 1599 but then-Lord Chamberlains' Men didn't get their charter till 1603.  Blackfriars was the group's second theatre.  I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sequence to weave in a correct intro, but we need one here.  Marquess, 25 Apr 2011.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.14.87 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe Theatre? 

message: There is something rather confusing about this article. At the beginning it mentions Lawrence Fletcher. Later in the article there are repeated mentions of "Fletcher" but these are actually references to John Fletcher (who is not actually linked to in the article except through the link to the collaboration Beaumont and Fletcher). I'm so far from an expert in this that I'm reluctant to rewrite, but someone more knowledgeable might want to. Parwig (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence Fletcher / John Fletcher 

message: My reading of this article is that the King's Men were not revived after 1660?  Is that a correct reading? In working on another article, a potential (secondary) source stated that they performed 43 plays in 1661. Thanks for any input.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that the source (Helen Moore, on Guy Earl of Warwick play) distinguishes clearly between The King's Men and The King's Company in 1661, but I'm wondering now if there were actually two groups then.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: King's Men

message: What does this mean? I cannot make sense of it:
*The King's Men needed more men, and in 1604 the number of sharers was increased from eight or nine, ten, eleven and twelve. 
Any idea what it should say? Perhaps it's been vandalised at some point? AndyJones (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: As of today, the first sentence of this article is “The King’s Men was the acting company to which William Shakespeare (1564–1616) belonged for most of his career.” This is on its face false, as the King’s Men didn’t and could not have existed until James was coronated in 1603. That sentence would make more sense in the article for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain%27s_Men
As it is now, this doesn’t make any sense given we know many if not all of the plays were originally written during Elizabeth’s reign, when the King’s Men didn’t exist; and per Wikipedia’s Shakespeare biography article: “The 1616 edition of Ben Jonson’s Works names him on the cast lists for Every Man in His Humour (1598) and Sejanus His Fall (1603). The absence of his name from the 1605 cast list for Jonson’s Volpone is taken by some scholars as a sign that his acting career was nearing its end.” 
Respectfully, this article (like all here on this site) should take a neutral point of view and not publish unsubstantiated claims, nevermind create them. 2600:4040:5AEF:B400:817C:3A9D:D7F7:795C (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line of King’s Men article is objectively false.  

message: Why are there five exclamation points at the end of a sentence? 104.34.199.48 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclamation points