[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Pasta

It wasn't as simple as that; no-one really mentioned the Salic law back in the 14th century and it certainly wasn't part of long-standing inheritance practice then - as an argument it was made much more of in the campaign against Henry VI's rights in the 15th century.

I apologise; you appear to be more expert on this than me. I know Salic law was part of the issue, but I didn't realise it was only raised later.

With regard to the English king's rights to certain French dukedoms, I can understand where the French stood on that. Henry II had acquired, by inheritance or marriage, territories that encompassed the majority of France, and he tended to feel that, although he technically held these lands as a vassal of the French king, his status as monarch of his own seperate kingdom should exmpt him from the normal obligations. No monarch could be expected to tolerate such a situation.

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by striing

That article is about Tom Hiddleston. I was talking about Ben Wishaw. I was responding to a post that started off talking about Richard II but I see I misread it and the end was talking about Henry V. To be honest I've never even heard of the actor who played Henry and had no clue about his background!

Yes it is about him; but that explains it then if you thought I meant Ben Whishaw. I didn't know anything about Tom Hiddleston before this series either apart from the name of one other film he has been in.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

I apologise; you appear to be more expert on this than me. I know Salic law was part of the issue, but I didn't realise it was only raised later.

With regard to the English king's rights to certain French dukedoms, I can understand where the French stood on that. Henry II had acquired, by inheritance or marriage, territories that encompassed the majority of France, and he tended to feel that, although he technically held these lands as a vassal of the French king, his status as monarch of his own seperate kingdom should exmpt him from the normal obligations. No monarch could be expected to tolerate such a situation.

The idea of using something other than cognatic primogeniture, whereby the eldest child inherited no matter what sex, only really came into the picture during the claims of Edward III. They changed the way the crown was inherited because they didn't want to be ruled by a line of Kings descended from the Dukes of Aquitaine, who'd be a little bit lax in demonstrating their respect and fealty to the French crown over the years. But they still didn't refer or switch to full blown Salic Law until much later.

There's an interesting explanation here:

In 1316, King John I the Posthumous died, and for the first time in the history of the House of Capet, a king's closest living relative upon his death was not his son. French lords (notably led by the late king's uncle, Philip of Poitiers, the beneficiary of their position) wanted to forbid inheritance by a woman. These lords wanted to favour Philip's claim over John's half-sister Joan (later Joan II of Navarre), but disqualify her future claim to the French throne, and any possible future claims of Edward III of England. These events later led to the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453).
In 1328, a further limitation was needed, to bar inheritance by a male through a female line. A number of excuses were given for these applications of succession, such as "genealogical proximity with the king Saint Louis"; the role of monarch as war leader; and barring the realm going to an alien man and his clan through a woman, which also denied an order of succession where an alien man could become king of France by marriage to its queen, without necessarily having any French blood himself. Also, in 1316 the rival heir was a five-year-old female and powerless compared with the rival. In 1328, the rival was the king of England, against which France had been in a state of intermittent war for over 200 years. As far as can be ascertained, Salic law was not explicitly mentioned.
Jurists later (this is the time period which I believe Pasta is referring to) resurrected the long-defunct Salic law and reinterpreted it to justify the line of succession arrived at in the cases of 1316 and 1328 by forbidding not only inheritance by a woman but also inheritance through a female line
This law was by no means intended to cover all matters of inheritance — for example, not the inheritance of movables – only those land considered "Salic" — and there is still debate as to the legal definition of this word, although it is generally accepted to refer to lands in the royal fisc.
Only several hundred years later, under the Direct Capetian kings of France and their English contemporaries who held lands in France, did Salic law become a rationale for enforcing or debating succession. By then somewhat anachronistic (there were no Salic lands, since the Salian monarchy and its lands had originally emerged in what is now the Netherlands), the idea was resurrected by Philip V in 1316 to support his claim to the throne by removing his niece Jeanne from the succession, following the death of his nephew John.
In 1328, at latest, the Salic Law needed a further interpretation to forbid not only inheritance by a woman, but inheritance through a female line, in order to bar the male Edward III of England, descendant of French kings through his mother Isabel of France, from the succession. When the Direct Capetian line ended, the law was contested by England, providing a putative motive for the Hundred Years' War.
Shakespeare claims that Charles VI rejected Henry V's claim to the French throne on the basis of Salic law's inheritance rules, leading to the Battle of Agincourt. In fact, the conflict between Salic law and English law was a justification for many overlapping claims between the French and English monarchs over the French Throne.

So by the time Henry V is making his claims to the Throne of France via his descent from Edward III, they've altered the rules. I do think he was more than a little bit daft to think he was going to get anything like the territory that the English owned under Henry II and there's a lot of conjecture now as to whether it was the influence of the Church that decided him on the path to war.

It is quite interesting though, I think, that the reigning monarch is referred to as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands (irrespective of their sex) and toasted as such.

As for the adaptation itself, I'm only 45 minutes into it but I have to say I disagree with those who think Henry's "Once More Into the Breech Dear Friends" speech wasn't done well. I thought it was a very clever method of using the king speaking individually to each man, instead of to hundreds of troops. It spoke to each man and gave him courage direct and was very nicely understated. I haven't seen the St Crispin's Day speech yet to contrast it with though but so far I'm thoroughly enjoying this version.

[mrsdparis]

"It was Katherine's scene with her nurse, learning English nouns, which disappointed most though!"

Do so agree. It is always tedious, but this was agonisingly awful.

[striing]

Originally Posted by mrsdparis

Do so agree. It is always tedious, but this was agonisingly awful.

Have you seen the current production at the Globe? They resort to pronouncing coat as c*nt. If nothing else it distracts the audience for a few moments.

[Eraserhead]

I didn't enjoy this version of Henry V as much as others I've seen, mainly because I'm still not convinced by Tom Hiddlestone's performance. I think it lacked bite; it felt underplayed. Part of the reason was the direction - for whatever reason the director decided that the classic rousing speeches at Harfleur and Agincourt needed to be recited to a small group rather than addressed to the massed ranks. To me this just felt like the director making her own mark by doing something different. It didn't work for me.

The scenes which were omitted didn't bother me so much because it's so long since I've seen other versions or read the play that I forgot they existed. I was glad they did keep Henry's rather vile threats to the Governor of Harfleur.

The scenes with Katharine were just baffling. Henry's awkward attempts to woo her were cringeworthy but they should have been playful and humorous.

[mrsdparis]

"the current production at the Globe - they resort to pronouncing coat as c*nt."

No, haven't seen it, and don't feel inclined to make an effort, if that is the best that can be dredged up to provide amusement.

[striing]

Originally Posted by mrsdparis

"the current production at the Globe - they resort to pronouncing coat as c*nt."

No, haven't seen it, and don't feel inclined to make an effort, if that is the best that can be dredged up to provide amusement.

It's not worth much of an effort. Richard III however is a revelation. I've never liked the play as much as R2 and H4 and 6 but it's amazing.

[allisonbm2]

I loved The Globes version of Henry V much more than the Hollow Crown version.It was earthier and less precious much as I imagine it would have been performed originally. A lot of what turns me off certain versions of Shakespeare is the precious nature of the productions(oh and all the bloody cuts) 'Oh its our greatest playwright we must be reverential' well no he was writing for the masses it had bawdy humour,earthy wit,it had humanity and that is why I love his plays.

Invariably there is a version for everyone to enjoy.(prefer Branagh's to Oliviers and struggled through the BBC TV complete)I haven't seen Richard III at The Globe yet but can't wait

[lady_xanax]

Originally Posted by striing

Have you seen the current production at the Globe? They resort to pronouncing coat as c*nt. If nothing else it distracts the audience for a few moments.

Surely it's "con" as "c*nt"?

[striing]

Originally Posted by lady_xanax

Surely it's "con" as "c*nt"?

I don't understand.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

The idea of using something other than cognatic primogeniture, whereby the eldest child inherited no matter what sex, only really came into the picture during the claims of Edward III. They changed the way the crown was inherited because they didn't want to be ruled by a line of Kings descended from the Dukes of Aquitaine, who'd be a little bit lax in demonstrating their respect and fealty to the French crown over the years. But they still didn't refer or switch to full blown Salic Law until much later.

There's an interesting explanation here:

So by the time Henry V is making his claims to the Throne of France via his descent from Edward III, they've altered the rules. I do think he was more than a little bit daft to think he was going to get anything like the territory that the English owned under Henry II and there's a lot of conjecture now as to whether it was the influence of the Church that decided him on the path to war.

It is quite interesting though, I think, that the reigning monarch is referred to as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands (irrespective of their sex) and toasted as such.

As for the adaptation itself, I'm only 45 minutes into it but I have to say I disagree with those who think Henry's "Once More Into the Breech Dear Friends" speech wasn't done well. I thought it was a very clever method of using the king speaking individually to each man, instead of to hundreds of troops. It spoke to each man and gave him courage direct and was very nicely understated. I haven't seen the St Crispin's Day speech yet to contrast it with though but so far I'm thoroughly enjoying this version.

Very interesting. I'd still be inclined though to say the French had the right to resist being incorporated in the Plantagenet empire, regardless of the legalities, and I'm glad they won in the end.

As for the speech, I suppose we'll all have our own views, but it didn't really work for me.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I was glad they did keep Henry's rather vile threats to the Governor of Harfleur.

Yes, and I thought that was done pretty well, with some shots of women and children to accentuate the horror of what he was threatening to do.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

Very interesting. I'd still be inclined though to say the French had the right to resist being incorporated in the Plantagenet empire, regardless of the legalities, and I'm glad they won in the end.

As for the speech, I suppose we'll all have our own views, but it didn't really work for me.

Oh I have no problem with the French defending their country at that time, even if it meant a changing of the rules. Not sure you could say they "won" though given the fact their monarchy ended up ultimately being overthrown in a bloody revolution and that descended from the Plantagenets is still going

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

Oh I have no problem with the French defending their country at that time, even if it meant a changing of the rules. Not sure you could say they "won" though given the fact their monarchy ended up ultimately being overthrown in a bloody revolution and that descended from the Plantagenets is still going

On the other hand, France remains an independent country, not one under English rule, which I'd say was the issue of the war (maybe the Valois wouldn't have agreed, but I bet Joan of Arc would have)

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

On the other hand, France remains an independent country, not one under English rule, which I'd say was the issue of the war (maybe the Valois wouldn't have agreed, but I bet Joan of Arc would have)

Oh absolutely the case yes. I can't see it would have remained under English control though even if the Plantagenets/Angevins had succeeded during the Hundred Years War. I'm sure a second son would have been dispatched off over there and, as happens with time, it would gradually have moved to independence.

[mrsdparis]

Originally Posted by striing

I don't understand.

I think Lady X means that 'con' is, loosely, French for c**t, but in a less offensive sort of way.

[Cadiva]

Originally Posted by Cadiva

I haven't seen the St Crispin's Day speech yet to contrast it with though but so far I'm thoroughly enjoying this version.

Just got round to finishing this off and I have to say I thought the way they had Harry speaking to his captains for the St Crispin's Day speech was actually inspired directing. He spoke to those named within the speech directly, it was a personal invocation of all that made England "great" under Henry V and then we see each of those men in turn, the greatest Lords of England, go out to their places.

I agree though, that cutting out the attack on the baggage train meant the speech to the French Herald was a bit "off" as there was no explanation for why Henry V wouldn't allow ransom. It made that whole exchange disjointed and made Harry simply look spiteful in front of the Herald and gave no explanation for why, after the first exchange of troops, Henry told Exeter to tell his soldiers to kill all the prisoners.

The battle scene was well done, I thought, concentrating on the small details, the individual fights, the archers readying for the French cavalry. I also loved the exchange between the French leaders, York and the Constable of France (got a bit teary then the same as Exeter!)

Other than that though, I think this might have been my favourite of the three, just tipping Richard II into second place.

[Cadiva]

Ran out of editing time. Forgot to say, I absolutely loved the foreshadowing of the War of the Roses at the end with Falstaff's boy holding the Cross of St George which he'd tried to stop the bleeding of the Duke of York, and him turning into Chorus.