It was the year 1600 when William Shakespeare wrote the last of his grand histories and the crowning achievement of Marian drama.
While Arthur is a history, it is just as often counted among the major tragedies, much like Richard III. In fact, the parallels with the latter are striking; both involve a devious uncle, a plot against the rightful heir to the throne of England, and a king from abroad who seizes the crown, ending a period of turmoil and starting a new dynasty.
And of course, both are ripe with distorsions and inaccuracies, to the frustration of the historian.
The reader will need some background in order to bridge the gap between the eras these two histories take place in. What I can provide here must be far from exhaustive, or else it would be a daunting task for me to write and for you to read. You're welcome.
King Henry VII died in 1509, and was succeded by his eldest son Arthur.
Prince Arthur had been married to a Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon, since November 1501. Not many months later, in the Spring of 1502, he nearly succumbed to sweating sickness in the midst of an epidemic, at Ludlow Castle. The same castle Arthur's uncles had resided in before being taken to the Tower, never to be seen again.
While the people celebrated the boy's recovery, thirty years later many would come to see this as an omen of things to come...
Arthur ruled for over two decades, and became eventually known, even if informally, as King Arthur II.
The successes of the Arthurian Era all appeared to warrant comparison with the mythical predecessor; the stunning victories in France, the magnanimous treatment of the defeated Scottish foe James IV, the grand building projects in Winchester, the mecenatism that made the royal court the very heart of the English Renaissance, and the naval expeditions to North American shores in search for the way to China.
It was in this environment that Prince Arthur was raised, together with his older sister Elizabeth and his younger sisters Mary and Margaret. A precocious youth, his outlook on the world was shaped in no small measure by the opposite influences of two remarkable women; the stern Catholicism of his Spanish mother and the enlightened humanism of his uncle's French wife, Marguerite of Angouleme. It was the latter who championed the freedom of religious thought at the Arthurian court, much to the Queen's annoyance. Exposed to such diverse views in a time of growing religious tensions, the Prince of Wales was drawn to continental novelties from Saxony, to the daring ideas of Luther and Melancthon.
In a curious twist of fate, Prince Arthur will eventually be one of the very few (if not the only one) to have known personally both the Reformer and his Imperial arch-enemy, Arthur's own cousin and brother-in-law Charles V.
By the year 1531 Prince Arthur had married his cousin Isabella of Austria (one of Charles' sisters), while the Duke of York, now widowed, had not remarried just yet.
It is at this point that the line between history and popular Tudor legend becomes blurred, given the relative scarcity of solid facts and the abundance of speculations.
The common narrative (that Shakespeare builds upon) maintains that Henry killed King Arthur, and that he did so because the King was on the cusp of finding out that Henry and Catherine had been secretly in love for many years. Moreover, Henry was unaware that his brother's death would have set in motion a plot, concocted by Papal agents in London, to keep Prince Arthur from the throne until he renounced his Lutheran faith. The plot required Henry to become regent for the time being, wich he agreed to on one condition; that the Pope would authorize his marriage to his dead brother's widow. The Pope granted Henry's request.
It is one of the tragic ironies of history that King Arthur died on October 2, 1531; thirty years to the day after Catherine of Aragon had landed in England.
The action of Arthur begins exactly one month after Old Arthur's death, and takes place in the span of seven months. A mere eight months that changed England forever...
And so you have it, an alternate Tudor Era with AH Hamlet, AH Shakespeare, alternate everything!
What do you think? Suggestions? Criticisms? Absurdities to point out? Could the plot of Hamlet unfold from here? (the ghost is ASB of course, but Shakespeare does have ghosts in historical plays like Julius Caesar)
While Arthur is a history, it is just as often counted among the major tragedies, much like Richard III. In fact, the parallels with the latter are striking; both involve a devious uncle, a plot against the rightful heir to the throne of England, and a king from abroad who seizes the crown, ending a period of turmoil and starting a new dynasty.
And of course, both are ripe with distorsions and inaccuracies, to the frustration of the historian.
The reader will need some background in order to bridge the gap between the eras these two histories take place in. What I can provide here must be far from exhaustive, or else it would be a daunting task for me to write and for you to read. You're welcome.
King Henry VII died in 1509, and was succeded by his eldest son Arthur.
Prince Arthur had been married to a Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon, since November 1501. Not many months later, in the Spring of 1502, he nearly succumbed to sweating sickness in the midst of an epidemic, at Ludlow Castle. The same castle Arthur's uncles had resided in before being taken to the Tower, never to be seen again.
While the people celebrated the boy's recovery, thirty years later many would come to see this as an omen of things to come...
Arthur ruled for over two decades, and became eventually known, even if informally, as King Arthur II.
The successes of the Arthurian Era all appeared to warrant comparison with the mythical predecessor; the stunning victories in France, the magnanimous treatment of the defeated Scottish foe James IV, the grand building projects in Winchester, the mecenatism that made the royal court the very heart of the English Renaissance, and the naval expeditions to North American shores in search for the way to China.
It was in this environment that Prince Arthur was raised, together with his older sister Elizabeth and his younger sisters Mary and Margaret. A precocious youth, his outlook on the world was shaped in no small measure by the opposite influences of two remarkable women; the stern Catholicism of his Spanish mother and the enlightened humanism of his uncle's French wife, Marguerite of Angouleme. It was the latter who championed the freedom of religious thought at the Arthurian court, much to the Queen's annoyance. Exposed to such diverse views in a time of growing religious tensions, the Prince of Wales was drawn to continental novelties from Saxony, to the daring ideas of Luther and Melancthon.
In a curious twist of fate, Prince Arthur will eventually be one of the very few (if not the only one) to have known personally both the Reformer and his Imperial arch-enemy, Arthur's own cousin and brother-in-law Charles V.
By the year 1531 Prince Arthur had married his cousin Isabella of Austria (one of Charles' sisters), while the Duke of York, now widowed, had not remarried just yet.
It is at this point that the line between history and popular Tudor legend becomes blurred, given the relative scarcity of solid facts and the abundance of speculations.
The common narrative (that Shakespeare builds upon) maintains that Henry killed King Arthur, and that he did so because the King was on the cusp of finding out that Henry and Catherine had been secretly in love for many years. Moreover, Henry was unaware that his brother's death would have set in motion a plot, concocted by Papal agents in London, to keep Prince Arthur from the throne until he renounced his Lutheran faith. The plot required Henry to become regent for the time being, wich he agreed to on one condition; that the Pope would authorize his marriage to his dead brother's widow. The Pope granted Henry's request.
It is one of the tragic ironies of history that King Arthur died on October 2, 1531; thirty years to the day after Catherine of Aragon had landed in England.
The action of Arthur begins exactly one month after Old Arthur's death, and takes place in the span of seven months. A mere eight months that changed England forever...
And so you have it, an alternate Tudor Era with AH Hamlet, AH Shakespeare, alternate everything!
What do you think? Suggestions? Criticisms? Absurdities to point out? Could the plot of Hamlet unfold from here? (the ghost is ASB of course, but Shakespeare does have ghosts in historical plays like Julius Caesar)
Last edited:
