Friday, August 14, 2015

2 squirts


bocopro said...

When Hamlet suggests lying in Ophelia's lap and has to clarify that he meant his head, not "country matters," she tells him "you are naught, my lord."

A pro pos to your baudy implications, ne?

Kim du Toit said...

Okay, Hamlet. Am I the only one who's ever spotted the giant hole in the plot?

When Hamlet's father is poisoned, the law of royal succession states that Hamlet (the king's son) must become king, not the king's brother. It's not like Hamlet's a tot and unable to reign, either -- he's in his late teens or early twenties, and perfectly capable of ruling Denmark.

So the whole setup is a load of old bollocks, and the story is nonsensical.

Or have I missed something?

DougM said...

^ So, what you're sayin', then, it that it was …
not to be.

Larry said...

Kim, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the law of succession for 12th Century Denmark. It certainly wasn't the case for the Viking era, which is when the story probably originated. Back then, it was by election. I think in in the Danish tale, Hamlet's mother Gerta is the one who is royal. Until she dies, whoever she's married to is of course king. But it's a confusing tangle.

Steve in Greensboro said...

According to an article in the Grauniad, Gertrude was “imperial jointress of our warlike state” (Claudius’ opening speech from Act 1, Scene 2) and entitled to inherit the crown from her husband. “Jointure” was “an invention of the Tudor legal system that allowed a man to leave his estate to his widow rather than his children.” (Thank you, Innertubes.)

And (according to me) why would Claudius have killed his brother (not nice) and married his sister in law (probably a woman of a certain age), unless it made him King?

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.