I like the part where you lazily accuse me of doing exactly what you actually did when there's a metric asston of the man's own notes and words left over accounting and responding to critics and therefore I don't need your 4chan level magical exegesis to process the work from an objective and mechanical standpoint.
When I have the man's own words I don't need yours.
Nevermind none of that has anything to do with Dr. PinkCake or his own particular exposition methods.
and yet you choose to call me out!
as for his notes which ones? the ones that where supposedly saved from the great fire of London?
you know there are plenty of doubts regarding those!
fuck there are doubts if William even existed or if his works where truly all his or if quite a few where not made by nobles who could not come out of authors of such works or females a true scandal, for the time!
what there is no doubt is what the story truly shows which is 2 family feuding going even into murder and risking civil war inside a city the 2 kids getting the hornies for each other placed upfront are there to give the story some levity instead of making people think what was really going on at the time politically with the ascension of the merchant class and how their constant feuds created massive social unrest!
you know how scholars know this? the families where already at odds before the kids saw each other and a feud was already going on or was about to start and that forbidden romance was just the trigger but not the powder that creates the explosion! (must check this, since its been a while since i last checked on this... not that i had any intent to return to it anyways!)
weird that 91 years afterwards you get the glorious revolution because the monarchy was unable to keep the social peace with all the feuding lords merchants and other groups which is whats presented in the play!
what you called tin foil is watching the entire forest instead of just looking at the tree! so yes i resent that!