![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Essex/Bolingbroke
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 10/10/00
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1908 Tuesday, 10 October 2000. From: Hugh Grady <grady@voicenet.com> Date: Monday, 9 Oct 2000 09:03:28 -0400 Subject: 11.1902 Re: Essex/Bolingbroke Comment: RE: SHK 11.1902 Re: Essex/Bolingbroke I don't believe there was any single "treasonous speech." The conviction and execution resulted from the action of leading an armed march through London aimed at taking the Queen into his custody. His defense was that he was merely protecting her and himself from his "enemies." But the magistrates opined that using force to take the queen into custody was itself treason--which seems sensible enough. What Essex eventually "confessed" to (after he had already been convicted and was awaiting execution) was a version of his defense, claiming he never meant to harm the Queen but wished to "use the shadow of her authority" to convene a Parliament to condemn his enemies--and as many believed, to proclaim himself King--a goal he never acknowledged. --Hugh Grady
|
|
|||||