Hamlet thread

It's like an unspoken but open court secret. The king and Hamlet would naturally be protected from this information. Claudius probably tirelessly recruited supporters with promises which is why nobody just told the King.

Perhaps the ghost knows, but it makes no difference to him. He lived thinking Hamlet is his son, and in death he gives Hamlet one last trial (to kill Claudius) to finally confirm Hamlet as his (at least spiritual) son.

Can't say thats a very plausible or natural sounding explanation. You've really contrived it to fit your theory but on its own that explanation is just so manufactured and does not fit the rest of the story

BUT THAT'S JUST A THEORY

A Yea Forums THEORY

sounds more like everything was rotten in Denmark

Hamlet hesitates to kill Claudius because he thinks killing him while hes praying will send him to heaven, also Hamlet is a little bitch.

As for why Hamlet didn't inherit the throne, in Act 5 scene 2 Hamlet alludes to this when he says he lost the election

He that hath killed my king and whored my mother, Popped in between th' election and my hopes,

The issue of succesion cannot be ignored. Shakespeare was not unaware of it, nor was the public of Elizabethean England who were well aware of succession in that tumultuous time of Henry VIII, Mary, and the Spanish Armada. So give me any plausible explanation why Hamlet did not succeed to the throne of Denmark, and make it less "contrived" if you please.

The electors preferred the late King's brother over a grieving, depressed, young man. There you go, far more plausible

Even in such elective monarchies the King's son was chosen 99/100 times. The electors had to have some excuse to deem Hamlet unfit, e.g. he's a bastard.

By this logic hardly any son would ever be elected to succeed his father.

So by your logic it is widely known that Hamlet is a bastard, yet he afforded the position and respect that would normally be afforded to a legitimate prince?

Hamlet was described to have been especially emotional and depressed. Not all sons were like this, and also this is a play. I find it far more like that Shakespeare took a creative liberty than that Hamlet is a secret bastard with no indication of it

No, normally a legitimate Prince would be afforded the privilege of becoming king.
Perhaps you underestimate Shakespeare.

>hear about a production of Hamlet coming to my local theatre with great reviews
>excitably go online to buy tickets since I've been rereading Shakespeare recently and haven't seen any of his plays live in years
>it's a contemporary reimagining with a lead actress playing a female Hamlet

Attached: p01h0dpg.jpg (640x360, 35K)

I'm not underestimating Shakespeare, I'm saying the "evidence" that you cling to does not actually support your theory. You say Hamlet's hesitation to kill Claudius is from his subconcious awareness of Claudius' paternity, but this is quite farfetched considering there is no indication that Claudius fathered him.

You say the only reason electors could deem Hamlet unfit to rule would be because it is commonly known that he is a bastard. Why then, does nobody treat him as an illegitimate? You can't rely on him losing the election as your proof, because there are more plausible reasons for him losing. For one, he can be deemed unfit to rule because of his known emotional instability. Or it can be Shakespeare's way of highlighting conflict in succession, because you are right that the son normally inherits. I don't accept Hamlet's bastardy as an explanation though

Hamlet's flaw is that he overreaches, wanting to be the judge as well as executioner. As Claudius later says, he hadn't truly confessed, so Claudius would have gone to hell anyway. But Hamlet wanted to decide for himself that Claudius would go to hell.

Not that it matters, but Fortinbras is the true hero of Hamlet

I know that Claudius in reality wasn't praying, he said something like his thoughts don't reach Heaven or something. But Hamlet doesn't know this, he just sees someone who seems to be deep in prayer. But you're right, it wasn't enough for Hmalet to kill him, he had to make sure he didn't go to heaven either

ah yes, we're in agreement then

your weak point is the Ghost being right about everything
Also, Hamlet was a girl not a boy

Attached: 6A7BB554-4044-45E7-AA7D-DA325F71CF63.jpg (500x626, 39K)

It's never "explained" outright, but there are several suggestions that the Danish succession is in some ways influenced by a democracy, of sorts.
>But I do prophesy th' election lights
>On Fortinbras. He has my dying voice.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm a firm believer that a person is going to find whatever it is that he's looking for in Hamlet. I'm just not so sure that we should boldly assume that Hamlet is illegitimate simply because he is not immediately made king.
I mean, how old is Hamlet even? It's implied that he's as old as thirty, but there's also evidence that he's a lot younger.