Once Upon a Tudorista: The Story of Lizy's Paper

Portrait of Henry VIII and his family. 

 

It all began what feels like a very long time ago. Even I don't remember exactly how it started. I do know that I was beginning to see connections between the tragic events in the lives of the Tudor monarchs and similar events in Shakespeare's plays. I'd spent my life growing up reading about the Tudors, so why not write about them? 

With this topic in mind I began putting my ideas together. I started officially by searching for relevant scholarly articles. The best result I had was the paper "Shakespeare's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", which was an in-depth look at the connections between Richard's accusations of his relatives' bastardy and the tainted legitimacy of the Tudors. When I started drafting the paper I decided to narrow down the topic to just legitimacy. I still struggled, however, with my verbose writing and also my lack of sufficient scholarly sources. I was not very successful with social networks, but I tried posting my developing thesis statements on Facebook.

My grandfather passed away on the weekend of March 23rd, and the funeral was to be on the 30th. Deciding to head down to Arizona for the funeral, I finished my first draft by Wednesday the 27th and drove down on the 28th. It was here I was able to talk to my cousin Gloria, who commented on my ideas and gave me some more perspective (and by the way, she recently announced that she is expecting a baby). I returned just after midnight on April 1 and within twenty-four hours had found several more scholarly papers to add muscle to my argument, and I also checked out a couple of books from the library. I re-wrote the paper using substantial chunks from the first draft plus quotes from my new sources. For lack of writing time and paper space, my paper ended up being about why legitimacy was such an important issue in the sixteenth century rather than about how Shakespeare and the Tudors were connected, but I felt like the thematic issue was important to address (for personal reasons I will refrain from discussing).  I finished editing on Friday and called it good. 

Most of what I learned from the experience was that if I am writing an academic paper about something I am passionate about, I am more likely to put effort into it. Writing this paper gave me a chance to become more familiar with the Tudors and the history of their reign. From others' positive feedback and from my own personal feelings about the paper, this is one of the best term papers I have ever written.

Elizabeth Cole: "Pretenders to Birthright, Heirs to Virtue: The Legitimacy of the Tudors and Shakespeare's Characters"

So I must needs apologize for being a little behind in the game, since I had no idea we were submitting online (what I get for not coming to class). But here it is in all its glory.

Instructions:
Follow the link. Click on the third item down on the menu. A screen will pop up that says "No Preview". Do not be intimidated. Click the white arrow on the far side of the screen and the paper will appear.

Pretenders to Birthright, Heirs to Virtue: The Legitimacy of the Tudors and Shakespeare's Characters

Abstract:

The struggles of the Tudor dynasty of sixteenth-century England were created by the need of the monarchs to secure individual and legal legitimacy. William Shakespeare examines the issue in several of his plays, including King Lear, Richard III, and King John. Through recreating the legitimacy battles of the Tudors in his plays, Shakespeare demonstrates that it is not bastardy which corrupts a person's character but the betrayal of family ties and falsifying legitimacy, and that legitimacy does not make a person good but virtue and loyalty to one's country does. Legitimacy is not merely a label associated with birth but a stigma assigned by others on an individual. Not only is bastardy a perversion of the natural order but also falsifying the legitimacy or illegitimacy of others, as well as the betrayal of family ties in this manner. Moral legitimacy or virtue is manifested by loyalty to one's country and family. This paper compares the legitimacy issues during the reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I to commentary about legitimacy in Shakespeare's works.

I has a better draft...?

So this is the running copy of the final draft. Intro/conclusion still needs work, maybe. Comments and advice are appreciated, and suggestions for a title are welcome? I'm adding the in-text citations tomorrow.

[Insert title Here]

While William Shakespeare himself lived and wrote in an era of peace and prosperity, the early and middle decades of the sixteenth century could not have been more different, with the government in turmoil as the monarchs of the Tudor dynasty struggled for a stable rule and succession thereafter. What made all of the Tudors, including Shakespeare's patron Queen Elizabeth I, so vulnerable was the need to rule and reproduce within the standard of legitimacy. Shakespeare as well as his audience recognized this vulnerability and, oddly enough, the issue of legitimacy crops up in certain of his plays, notably King Lear, Richard III, and King John. Just as Elizabeth and her sister Mary I who ruled before her had to come to terms with their questionable legitimacy in different ways, Shakespeare presented to his audiences in dramatic form the ways in which legitimacy or the lack thereof was confronted and dealt with and why certain efforts succeeded and failed. Shakespeare recreates the legitimacy battles of the Tudor dynasty in his plays to demonstrate that it is not illegitimacy that corrupts a person's character but falsifying legitimacy and the betrayal of family ties, and that legitimacy does not make a person good but virtue and loyalty to one's country does.

Bibliography: Updated and Annotated

OK, PEEPS! THE PROCRASTINATION IS OVER!

If looking at the above picture gives you a worse headache than looking at the rough draft of my paper, then I'm off to a good start. If not, I won't be surprised because it has a long way to go. 

In my attempt to expand my sources, this is what I have found:

 

Social Proof: Finally, Someone to talk to!

 

As some of you may have noticed, I have been having difficulty finding people to talk to about my topic. However, I did follow up on Dr. Burton's hint to post our "tweethis statements" on the internet, and I have been doing so on Facebook, and this caught the attention of my cousin Gloria. One of the small miracles that happened around my grandfather's funeral last weekend was being able to discuss this with her. Gloria's family has never been active in the LDS Church. Gloria attended a ministerial college and has studied religious history, and she told me when she was visiting me that she is currently an all-but-confirmed Anglican. That's what set my radar off, so I asked her a few questions about the Tudors and the start of the Church of England. From what I remember of our conversation off the top of my head, she said that when considering the Tudors it is important to separate the religious from the political. The pope had no reason to not grant Henry VIII a divorce other than the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor was leaning on him to say no, and Henry separating the English Church from Rome was a bluff. Henry needed a male heir more than anything else. If he had to have one legitimate heir, the other child had to become illegitimate. His divorce from Katherine of Aragon estranged him from his daughter Mary and estranged her from Elizabeth. Gloria says it is Mary we need to remember to be sorry for: had the divorce and its aftermath not been so traumatic, she might have been a more competent ruler. Henry made a lot of mistakes, and he realized this in later life, but although his wives Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr attempted reconciliation and Henry made room for Mary and Elizabeth in his will, the damage had already been done. Had he attempted to reconcile himself with his daughters--and reconcile them as well--things would have been better. *wants to cry*

Scholarly Articles: I found these two right when I got back from Arizona and read them during breaks at work (because my coworkers take notoriously long breaks).

• • Neill, Michael. “'In Everything Illegitimate:' Imagining the Bastard in Renaissance Drama.” The Yearbook of English Studies. 23: Early Shakespeare Special Number. 1993: 270-292. Web. 1 April 2013. In case you haven't inferred from the title, this paper is all about THE HORROR OF BASTARDS! ...Specifically in Renaissance Drama. Plenty of discussion about Edmund in King Lear.
   
  • Trace, Jacqueline. “Shakespeare's Bastard Faulconbridge: An Early Tudor Hero.” Shakespeare Studies. 13. 1980: 59-70. Web. 1 April 2013. The author of this article is mainly trying to discuss the possible historical figures relating to the Bastard in King John, but it does discuss the Bastard's motivations and loyalties. 
  
  
  Books: 
  
  
  • Pierce, Robert. Shakespeare's Histories: The Family and the State. Ohio State University Press, 1971. Print. Pierce talks about the family dynamics of the women in the history plays. A beneficial source on Richard III and King John as well as on ideas about the family in Elizabethan times.
  •  Loades, David. The Tudor Queens of England. London: Continuum, 2009. Print. A biography and analysis of the women who shaped pre-Tudor and Tudor England. This will be my reference for the specific historical discussion of the Tudors. I was going to use The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir but it only focuses on the six wives and it is also to detailed. This other book is much more succinct. 

Thinking about Audiences and Paper Venues

I was up late last night talking to one of my roommates, and she says she and our other roommate know a bit about the Tudors, mostly from the recent HBO show (which I've heard is very lewd). However, she did comment, "Whenever (the other roommate) says, 'You'll never guess what happened on the show!', I'm like, 'How did I not learn this in History class?'" So I'm starting to think maybe I could talk to my roommates about my paper--although they're not home much, and when we are at home we don't talk much. So we'll see.

However, it does demonstrate that a lot of people are familiar with the Tudors. Numerous books, movies, and TV programs have been written about them, and people consume these eagerly. So I think it would be a good idea to direct my paper to an audience familiar with the Tudors and the events that I am discussing in my paper.
It goes without saying that I would also like to direct my paper to Shakespeare enthusiasts. From a scholarly standpoint, my paper is relevant because the Tudor regime had such a huge impact on Shakespeare's writing and that is what I am trying to evaluate. However, a lot of people don't automatically connect Shakespeare with the Tudors, so for people with fewer scholarly inclinations this might offer a new perspective.

From the suggestions of my classmates, I already have a few ideas about venues for my paper. I already promised myself that I would submit to the BYU English symposium before I graduate, and I will especially want to submit this paper if it does turn out to be the best scholarly paper I've ever written, which I hope for. I am also thrilled by the idea that the Utah Shakespeare Festival accepts scholarly articles. That might actually be a very relevant venue because a lot of Shakespeare enthusiasts flock there annually, and they might be interested in what I have to say about certain Shakespeare plays. Some of them, for instance, might remember the most recent production of Richard III back in 2011 that I also went and saw for my 291 class. That production doesn't have any particular bearing on my actual paper, but I do think about it a lot because it was SO AMAZING!

Anyway, just a few thots.

Kaylee! I Have Internet Again (and btw here's my rough draft, part 1)

Dear Kaylee,
Your advice to me in class this morning was SO helpful. I think it needed to be cut. Here is an edited version of the first part of my paper.
 <3 <3 <3 Lizy

Part I: An Echo of the Tudors

Scholars, writers, and ordinary people alike have always been fascinated by the tumultuous events of the Tudor dynasty. “From Shakespeare’s day to today, we have been obsessed with the Tudor period: the colourful lives of the monarchs, the complex rises and falls of both the servants of the crown and the nobility, the fact that ordinary people could make their way into the highest offices of the kingdom” (Morris). We are fascinated, perhaps, by the idea that the people who lived during those times have something to say to us, particularly the renowned playwright William Shakespeare who lived during the closing years of the reign of Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudors, and during the first years of the reign of her successor James I, and received the patronage of both. Those who observe the historical record closely understand that much of the turmoil during the reign of Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, and the strained family relations of his children have to do with Henry's quest for a legitimate heir. Consequently, his daughters Elizabeth and Mary both struggled to obtain legitimacy in one way or another during their lifetimes in order to secure their claims to the throne. The search for personal legitimacy was the driving force behind the lives of the Tudor monarchs. Shakespeare's plays contain echoes of the traumatic events and chaotic personalities of the Tudor dynasty that suggest that he is recreating the tragic world of the Tudors in his plays to address how the issue of legitimacy affected them. For this paper, I will consider the plays Richard III, King Lear, and King John, as they are thematically the most relevant to the issue of legitimacy in Tudor times.

Shakespeare's play Richard III is traditionally considered heavily embedded with Tudor propaganda, as it is depiction of the fall of the House of York as it lead to the rise of the Tudor dynasty. However, it is also a thematic treatise on the legitimacy of the Tudors themselves. In his paper “Shakespeare's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy” Maurice Hunt claims that it is also an open discussion of the questions of legitimacy surrounding Henry VIII's heirs, revealing“the emergence of a paradigm of illegitimate legitimacy (or legitimate illegitimacy), a composite reproduced in the discourse on royal bastardy in King Richard III.” Richard III meets my criteria for analysis because it depicts the overturn of true legitimacy by an usurper because of how he smears the legitimacy of others, and how this overturn is reversed.

The play King John is considered an anomaly among Shakespeare's history plays, but it has a very frightening similarity to the Tudors in that it depicts the struggle for the English throne between members of a single family. Scholar Robert Lane points out that “Indeed, it is more than plausible that Shakespeare chose King John's reign because its legitimacy--the fundamental focus of the play--turned on strikingly similar issues (Lane). During the Tudor dynasty as in times before as depicted by Shakespeare, the throne of England was a highly coveted prize, but whoever wanted to claim it had to prove they had more legitimate credentials—such as birth and religious creed—than their oppnents. However, most of the contenders in both instances are very closely related. One would think that since these people are so closely related they would treat each other with love, but the desire for power has overpowered all of these affections. Shakespeare's depiction of this medieval royal family applies to the Tudors in that the struggle for monarchy and the legitimacy to secure it is a matter of life and death as well as war and peace.

While both of these plays have been demonstrated by Hunt and Lane to be thematically relevant, King Lear also includes a thematic discourse on issues of division within a royal family as well as on legitimacy itself. It is the subplot of the Earl of Glouchester and the division between his sons which merits critical attention because of how the illegitimate Edmund questions and changes his own legitimacy. There are parallels to the Tudor family in King Lear such that legitimacy is a label applied by others, individuals of questionable seek to change in themselves and others, and that false legitimacy is self-destructive while true legitimacy has nothing to do with birth. The struggle for legitimacy in Shakespeare's plays, therefore, is Shakespeare's commentary on how the monarchs of his day struggled with theirs.