Category: Shakespeare in the News

Shakespeare in the news.

A Portrait, A Locket, A Scorned Love Affair?

~ duane ~ Leave a comment

We’ve all heard the stories and theories about Shakespeare’s sexuality. Was he in love with a man? Was it the Fair Youth of the sonnets? If so, who was it? Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare’s patron? The only thing we know for sure is that we’ll never know for sure.

That doesn’t mean we can’t hang on each new development in the story like the most recently installment of our favorite reality tv drama, though!

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/hilliard-portrait-shakespeare-patron-secret-lover-2684052

This article from ArtNet brings up a fascinating locket. What’s in the locket? Why, a portrait of H.W. himself. Why’s that special? He was Earl of Southampton, there’s plenty of portraits of him.

Not like this.

Locket featuring a portrait of Henry Wriothseley

When the 2.25 inch treasure was discovered by art historians Elizabeth Goldring and Emma Rutherford, both were struck by the sitter’s unusually androgynous appearance, including his long golden curls, floral patterned jacket, and inviting blue eyes.

It’s difficult to look at a picture like this in 2025 and try to ponder what it meant 400 years ago. So, he’s wearing what he wants. So, he’s wearing his hair the length and style he wants. These days? No big deal. Back then? We don’t entirely know. Obviously, he sat for the portrait, so it wasn’t a completely hidden side of the man. He wasn’t afraid to be seen like this. Art historian Elizabeth Goldring suggests that the locket containing such an image, “must have been for a very, very close friend or lover.”

Wait, it gets better! Such a portrait apparently would have been painted on the back of a playing card. This one in particular used hearts. Awwww!

No no, not that! *This* portrait? If you take it out of its locket and look at the back, somebody has scribbled over the heart and turned it into a black spade! I know, right??

Shakespeare or no Shakespeare, that tells one great story. Do we know if it was a gift, or to whom? No. But we can clearly see that a heart was scratched out. Who would do that, and why? The “scorned lover” theory certainly seems valid. And who is the most well-known potential lover of Henry W.? Exactly.

What do you think?

Did The Two Princes Live?

~ duane ~ Leave a comment

What really happened to the two princes in the Tower? It’s one of history’s most haunting mysteries—two royal brothers vanish, a crown is taken, and centuries of speculation follow. Now, the researcher who found Richard III’s bones under a car park is back, and she thinks she has the answer.

Richard III has a fairly high body count, however you count it.
He’s directly responsible for at least ten deaths—give or take, depending on how you tally things like Henry VI, whose murder happens in the previous play. But we all know Shakespeare wasn’t aiming for strict historical accuracy. He was writing to entertain and to please a Tudor monarch. Truth got a few edits along the way.

One of the coldest acts—on stage and in history—is the disappearance of the two princes: Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. In the play, Richard has them smothered in the Tower. In real life? They just… vanished.

Or did they? 🎵 dun dun DUNNNNNN!

What Happened to the Two Princes in the Tower?

Enter Philippa Langley—yes, the same researcher who found Richard III’s remains under a car park in 2012. She’s been on this case for years, and she’s not just speculating; she’s been digging (literally and figuratively) through archives, and she thinks she’s found something significant.

You may have heard of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, two men who claimed to be the missing princes after the death of Richard III. Both were dismissed as imposters. Case closed, right?

Not so fast, says Langley.

She and her research team have uncovered documents suggesting those boys may have been exactly who they claimed to be. One example? Receipts from 1487 supporting a rebellion by “Edward IV’s son”—the same year Simnel led his uprising and was crowned in Dublin. Langley has uncovered new references to the boy being “called” or believed to be “a son of King Edward.” She thinks that points to Simnel being Edward V himself.

So, what do the historians think? Langley has earned credibility with the discovery of Richard’s remains. This isn’t just a publicity stunt—it’s the continuation of a long, serious investigation. And it definitely has me curious.

Of course, even with new evidence, the question of what happened to the two princes is thorny. Traditional accounts lean heavily on Richard III’s guilt, but most of those sources were written under the Tudors—who had every reason to paint Richard as a villain. Thomas More’s account, for instance, is vivid and damning, but it was written decades later, under Henry VIII.

That’s why Langley’s work is so interesting. She’s not just rehashing old chronicles; she’s digging into primary sources that have been overlooked or misfiled, tracing networks of payments, correspondence, and political maneuverings that hint at something far more complex. What if Edward V didn’t die in the Tower at all? What if his identity was suppressed and replaced with the “pretender” label for the sake of stability?

Langley’s argument, if it holds up, would radically shift our understanding of that period. It suggests that the official story—the one we’ve accepted for centuries—might have been more propaganda than truth. It wouldn’t be the first time history was written by the winners, especially in a shaky new dynasty like the Tudors.

Naturally, not everyone is convinced. Many historians remain skeptical, arguing that the lack of hard evidence (especially forensic) keeps this in the realm of interesting theory. But Langley’s success with the Richard III dig gives her a level of credibility that’s hard to ignore.

Whether you buy the theory or not, it’s a fascinating reminder of how much we still don’t know about the past—and how much can still come to light, even centuries later.

What do you think?

Dame Judi Dench Appreciation Post

~ duane ~ Leave a comment
Dame Judi Dench

It’s no surprise that we’re big fans of Dame Judi Dench here at Shakespeare Geek. I feel the same way about Sir Ian McKellen. When legends walk among us we must pay attention, because they do not do so forever. Dame Judi is 90 years old now and almost completely blind, so we’ll not be getting any more stage work from her. But when she speaks, we should listen, because one day that beautiful voice will be a memory. (Unless, I suppose, you waited on the waiting list for her audiobook?)

Maybe it’s the universe, maybe it’s the algorithm. But Dame Judi’s appearing frequently on my radar these days, and if all I can do is help amplify that signal, then so let it be done. She’s not showing signs of ever stopping.

  • Far Out Magazine gives us the role Dench would never play. I’m not click bait here, I’ll just tell you — Nurse (from Romeo and Juliet). Well…yeah? Who in god’s name is casting Dame Judi Dench as Nurse? I’d pay to watch her recite the entire play as a one-woman show (very much like another Shakespeare legend, Sir Patrick Stewart).
  • Readers in the UK might be able to tell me what the “ghost woods” are? Apparently Judi’s leading a petition to “bring them back.” Where’d they go? The petition got over 100,000 signatures in just three weeks. Go sign it!
  • She’s also using her star power to bring attention to early dementia diagnosis, teaming up with Alzheimer’s Research UK. “A diagnosis may not fix everything, but it gives people understanding, clarity, and some control at a time when everything feels uncertain. It allows families to make the most of the moments they have left. That’s why I’ve signed Alzheimer’s Research UK’s petition – and why I’m asking the public to do the same.”

Lastly, a story that I’m glad I missed. When I first started this blog oh so many years ago, I used to tell a Howard Stern story. This was back when he was on “terrestrial” radio, I haven’t actually heard him in years. But for whatever reason, I’ve long since forgotten, there was a Shakespeare reference that I heard on his show in the way in to work. And I thought, “I have no one to talk about that with. Nobody at work cares that Howard Stern just referenced Shakespeare.” It was moments like that which led directly to the blog being born. (Look at that, I found the post!)

Well last month, news-anchor Robin Quivers issued an apology to Dami Judi for accidentally broadcasting that she had died. I’m glad I missed this, because it would have infuriated me. The whole clip is there in the story, and it’s not a case of “the news person was just reading an incorrect story.” Quivers takes it upon herself to say “you’ll never meet her, because she’s dead.” The topper is when she knows it’s true because, “I’m a huge fan of hers.” No, you’re clearly not. We here at Shakespeare Geek are true fans of Dame Judi Dench.

What strikes me most about Dame Judi’s enduring presence is how she continues to use her platform for meaningful causes even as her performing career winds down. The dementia awareness campaign particularly resonates – here’s someone who built her career on memory, on the precise delivery of countless lines, now advocating for those facing the loss of that very faculty. There’s something both heartbreaking and inspiring about that commitment.

And perhaps that’s what separates true legends from mere celebrities. Dame Judi isn’t content to simply rest on her considerable laurels or retreat from public life. At 90, nearly blind, she’s still fighting for causes that matter – whether it’s preserving natural spaces or advancing medical research. She understands that her voice carries weight, and she’s determined to use it while she still can. That’s the mark of someone who truly grasps the responsibility that comes with being beloved by millions.

Closing The Book On A Long, Sad Story

~ duane ~ Leave a comment

Did you hear the one about the stolen First Folio? It all begins, for us, back in 2008:

A Fourth Folio Tempest

https://www.shakespearegeek.com/2008/07/folioed-again.html

In short, a man shows up at the Folger Library holding a First Folio and says, paraphrased, “I found this, is it worth anything?” Being the quick thinkers that they are, the Folger people say, “Have a seat,” take the book gingerly to the back room, and confirm that it is in fact a volume that had been stolen some years before. Our man is promptly arrested.

https://www.shakespearegeek.com/2010/03/if-you-steal-first-folio-be.html/

A few years later, the case goes to court, and it turns out the guy’s nuts.

Mr Scott appeared at Newcastle Crown Court wearing green combat army fatigues held up by a Gucci belt, and a pair of black Dior sunglasses, presumably a tribute to Che Guevara, a hero of Cuba.

https://www.shakespearegeek.com/2010/06/hehehewrecked-it-burn-hi.html

Things took a turn when we discovered that, in an effort to “disguise” the stolen artifact, he wrecked it. Tore out pages, defaced others, and so on. All for nothing, other than to ruin a piece of history. I suggested we send him to jail and move on.

https://www.shakespearegeek.com/2010/08/eight-years-for-destroying-history.html

He got eight years. I wasn’t happy about it.

Unfortunately, and I do mean it when I say that, Mr. Scott killed himself. I may have been furious that he stole and defaced a priceless piece of history, but that doesn’t mean I thought he should die for it.

This brings us to our final (?) installment:

https://www.perspectivemedia.com/shakespeare-first-folio-back-on-show-27-years-after-it-was-stolen/

27 years later, the Folio is back on display at Durham University as part of an exhibition called “Shakespeare Recovered.” I hope this is a deliberate pun because I believe that Scott tore the cover off the original. The article has a number of pictures and all the details, so if some of those ancient blog links I included above no longer work, this one has all the information.

Let’s hope our treasure remains safely in its home for a long, long time.