With an introduction from St Francis of Assisi School pupils who gave a little performed, potted history of Richard III and how there were so many protagonists with similar names of Edward, Richard...
Also an introduction from Hugh Dennis who as Jury Foreman (and Patron of the Foundation) explained what to expect and how Richard III was discovered in a car park between two bays and thus he didn't even have a ticket for either one. Including how the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) actually were lucky enough to finally prosecute a King and thus use the 'Crown' aspect of their name. Oh and we were told to forget whatever that Shakespeare Bard wrote!! Lest it may influence our decision.
First witness was the Duke of Buckingham superbly (as always) played by David Oakes, who cut a dashing figure in his cape and feathered hat. As I tweeted to him it was kind of Muskteer-esque and no surprises since he went off to ally himself with Henry Tudor in France. Of course he evaded the question of whether he had any part to play in the murder of the two Princes in the Tower. (Named Edward and Richard too.) Putting it down to "bloodlust" on the part of Richard, quite a few times over. Being questioned by the Prosecution as to whether he was an actor? Whereupon the Duke's reply was well, "subjective." He stated that Richard told him of his plan to murder the Princes and when asked what he did about it, he finally and reluctantly replied "nothing." Thereby damning their fate. Choosing to show allegiance to Henry Tudor and the Lancashire cause. (The Red Rose of Lancashire.)
[David of course having played the Duke of Clarence in the BBC production of The White Queen would've been all too familiar with Richard's actions.]
Infact, with hindsight, the prosecution produced no conclusive evidence whatsoever, forensic (even though it was 1484) or otherwise that Richard was actually behind the murders. Aside from hearsay and speculation. The Defence bringing up the Act of Parliament titled, Titulus Regius - (meaning "Royal Title" in Latin) and how Parliament gave the title of King of England to Richard III. Thereby confirming that all others were subsequently also legitimate. However also arguing that the others, such as Richard's brother, Clarence, had no succession to the throne and would not become King. Thus Richard had no reason to kill anyone, let alone his brother and his nephews.
However when Lady Anne took to the witness box, it was implied that she and Buckingham conspired in a way to implicate Richard and he was innocent after all. Anne being the widow of Edward, Prince of Wales and having no title until she married Richard and would become Queen. Her eye firmly on the Crown. Accusing Richard of the murder also and talking to the walls and never shutting up. Telling Richard to "don't look at me" from his seat several times over. And why was this, the Lady doth protest too much it appeared!
Richard on the 'throne' aka witness box, presented himself as amiable and accusing Buckingham and Anne of making things up. Surprise witness was Clarence himself who apparently was at a hen party as he entered to the tune of "you can dance, you can jive..." Funnily enough as Mama Mia is currently playing at the Novello Theatre. However he said he didn't drown in a vat of Mamsie wine, but that he was inebriated and he drank plenty of the wine, thus being known as "Three butts Clarence." Adding how Dick and him got on very well and he loved his brother. The Prosecution asking whether he was really dead or a ghost. Whereupon conceding he was too drunk to tell if he was alive or dead. The latter being the obvious conclusion. Even if Richard was dressed as a Goth at the moment as described by Clarence.
In fact Clarence had just watched a play "hear the drums Fernando..." and he was an actor hired to play Clarence since it was a small part and he wouldn't be around for long.
The Prosecution in their summing up and address to the jury spoke of how they should have no sympathy towards Richard even though he was infirm and hunchbacked. Even if the jury may have felt sorry for him on this aspect, it was enough to convict. Yet how even nature was against him cos of his condition and appearance. The Prosecution also stating that only one verdict would be required, Guilty or Not Guilty. That if Clarence was alive then this showed attempted murder on the part of Richard which carries a much more hefty sentence as it showed intent and thus he should be convicted under this instead. The Defence again referring to Titulus Regius and how it was Lady Anne and Buckingham who both wanted Richard gone and Henry Tudor on the throne. Their actions showing this and particularly Buckingham doing nothing to stop the murders.
As for the audience aka the jury voting on the verdict, it was again biased for want of a better word!! Since the verdict page of the programme for 'Not Guilty' was clearly printed on red paper, easier to read and spot whereas the 'Guilty' verdict was printed on black paper, much harder to see even with the lights on. (Although black would signify the Judge's black cloth placed on head when delivering a sentence of death. However that was irrelevant.)
Yet this trial wasn't only comical but also a reflection on the law and asides, to how the law and the concept of fairness was not present in those days. That justice should be available to everyone equally. Although Buckingham did refer to the Divine Right of Kings. And the audience, as the jury were referred to as "dim witted" amongst other slurs by the Prosecution, who having pondered it more did not do an effective job at all in presenting their flimsy evidence. Perhaps with hindsight I should change my verdict also to 'Not Guilty.'
I once paraphrased Richard III's "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" replacing it with "the law, the law, my kingdom for a law;" with a piece I wrote years ago relating to the importance of the law being the last bastion of civil liberties as well as a right and not a luxury for the few but access for everyone.
All in all have to say that I and the audience generally haven't had this much fun in a long time and how the event was extremely enjoyable. It was a perfect blend of actors, real life judiciary and the children themselves who proved to be funny and even serious at times. There was even some input from the celebrity jury consisting of Tim Campbell (the first Apprentice winner) Emily Carding, who played Richrd III herself globally, actress Athena Stevens, and Lindsay Johns, who was the only one who voted guilty. My verdict, in my legal opinion: Guilty. Mistrial, retrial and all that....!! Richard won but presumed to shake hands with everyone, so much for being deformed and not having a right hand! Something rotten indeed! Can't wait for the next one in two years!
It was great seeing David again after Venus In Fur last year and must admit was a little surprised not many people wanting to see him afterwards at Stage Door! Heck this jury was really biased against the Duke of Buckingham after all, as only two of us got pics with him and had a few words on another great performance!! Hey poor David even asked if anyone else wanted a pic or autograph! Silence!! Oh come on jury you could've done better!
Cast: Tony Gardner (My Parents Are Aliens) as Clarence; Kae Alexander (Game of Thrones) as Lady Anne; and David Oakes (Victoria, The White Queen) as Duke of Buckingham. Caleb J Richards as Richard III.
Jury Foreman Hugh Dennis hosted, with a jury including Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock MBE, Emily Carding, Professor Russell Jackson, Lindsay Johns, Dave Benson Phillips, Athena Stevens and The Rt Hon Ed Vaizey MP.
No comments:
Post a Comment