Aumerle and Queen Isabella

A flash banner.

About Chu Omambala

This is Chu's second season at Shakespeare's Globe. In 2001, he played Malcolm in Macbeth. Chu has spent a year at the Royal National Theatre, where his roles included the Prince of Morocco in The Merchant of Venice and Paris in Troilus and Cressida. He has also performed at the Bristol Old Vic and the Young Vic, London. His television credits include Doctors.

Character Notes 1

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

The first day of rehearsals was fantastic. This is my second season at the Globe, and although I wasn’t here last year, I immediately felt at home when I walked through the door that day. Because I wasn’t as nervous as I would be if I didn’t know the building and the people who work here, I was very keen to start working on the play straight away!

I have to admit, although I came to audition for the role of Aumerle, I was also half-interested in the role of Thomas Mowbray, who I think has some fantastic speeches. However, Tim [Carroll, Master of Play] told me during that audition that I was at least 15 years too young to play that role, and that I should stop being silly and concentrate on Aumerle. He was right, of course.

Aumerle is a really interesting role. What initially struck me is that he's very direct, almost arrogant. You could play Aumerle as two-faced, but I don’t think he is; I think he's extremely loyal to Richard, despite his slight wavering at the end of the play. He's certainly very loyal to the idea that the king is appointed by God. Throughout the play, we are told that Richard is surrounded by flatterers, but unlike Thomas More, Shakespeare doesn’t write many scenes where Richard is actually being flattered by another character. One of Aumerle's roles in the play, I think, is to tell Richard the truth and cut through the flattery. For instance, in act 3 scene 2, when Richard returns from Ireland, the Bishop of Carlisle assures the King that:

[…] that power that made [him] king
Hath power to keep [him] king in spite of all.
(ll 27-28)

Aumerle instantly seeks to counter this with what he sees as a more practical assessment of the situation:

He means, my lord, that we are too remiss
Whilst Bolingbroke through our security
Grows strong and great in substance and in power.
(ll. 33-35).

In that scene, Richard seems to oscillate between great joy and intense despair. I think that throughout the play, Aumerle is trying to persuade him of the existence of a practical approach, a middle way. A third way, perhaps…

In the second week of rehearsals, we went away as a company for a few days to Gaunt's House, a large house built on the lands that belonged to John of Gaunt when Richard II was on the throne. I was initially quite nervous about going away; I’ve never been on a residential as part of a rehearsal process before, but I needn’t have worried – they’re a really, really nice group of people and we had a great time, rehearsing during the day and often playing games and having barbeques in the evenings. We used the whole house for rehearsals, and it was really useful to try out particular scenes in different settings relevant to the story of the play. For example, we rehearsed act 3 scene 3 in a tower, with Richard and his followers at the top of the staircase and Northumberland and Bolingbroke's supporters at the bottom. Suddenly having such a large distance between the two groups made me realise that Richard's (and therefore Aumerle’s) authority at that moment relies on two things; the physical distance between Northumberland and the King, and the distance between Richard's public and private personae. You can see the difference between these personae if you compare the way Richard speaks to Northumberland with the way he speaks to Aumerle and Carlisle. To the former, he speaks as a king; formally, in a way that could almost be described as arrogant, but to his supporters, he speaks more hesitantly. Throughout the scene, this difference becomes less and less, and when it has disappeared, Richard agrees to come down and the physical distance that has also preserved them vanishes too. What upsets Aumerle is that Richard's public and private personalities become inseparably linked in this scene and he loses his authority as a result, at least in Aumerle's view.

Aumerle is a very high status character; he's son to the Duke of York and about 4th or 5th in line to the throne. He is a member of the royal family and is relatively critical of the king. which is perhaps not surprising given that, I find, most of the time no-one's as critical of you as your own family! As a result, he's very close to Richard and is disappointed by what he sees as Richard's lack of resolve. This is especially true in the above scene, when Aumerle's advice is very sensible, I think; he tells him:

[…] fight with gentle words
Till time lend friends, and friends their helpful swords.
(ll. 131-132)

He's telling him to wait, to bide his time while they try to raise an army to fight Bolingbroke, but instead of listening to Aumerle, Richard starts to believe that his fall is inevitable and collapses into despair. It's so disappointing for the more pragmatic Aumerle that he starts to weep. On reading Richard II for the first time, it does seem as though it's about two men, Richard and Bolingbroke, struggling for power. In fact, I think it's an ensemble piece that tells the story of a family at war.

Now we’re in the third week of rehearsals, and I’m really looking forward to going to Middle Temple Hall. It's a beautiful space. I remember noticing how high the ceiling was, and how that's going to challenge us vocally, but it's a perfect space in which to perform this production because Original Practices and the Tudor hall complement each other so well. It's going to be great fun.

Back to top

Character Notes 2

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

Today, I’ve been working on some of my key scenes in the play: act 5 scenes 2 and 3. After Richard is deposed, Aumerle becomes involved in a plot to kill the newly-crowned Bolingbroke, (now King Henry IV), at Oxford. In v.2, Aumerle's father, the Duke of York, catches him in possession of a letter that contains details of the plot to kill the king plus the conspirators’ names, including Aumerle’s. York immediately leaves to tell the king, even though he knows that the king may kill Aumerle when he finds out about the plot. The Duchess of York, Aumerle's mother, urges him to get to the king first and beg forgiveness, and in v.3, the whole York family confront each other in front of the king.

Throughout rehearsals, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between Aumerle and his father. Bill Stewart [Duke of York] and I think that, at the beginning of the play, they are quite close. Although none of the early scenes of the play show Aumerle and York speaking together, Bill and I have decided that they are fairly close at the beginning of the play, and we’re starting to think about how we can convey this to an audience during those scenes where we’re both on stage even though we don’t speak to each other. However, their relationship changes when Richard leaves for Ireland and Bolingbroke returns from exile; Aumerle is a staunch supporter of Richard and can’t be particularly happy with his father for wavering in his loyalty to the king and supporting Bolingbroke. At the beginning of v.2, Aumerle doesn’t say very much to the Duke; his answers are short, almost rude:

York:
[…] Do these joust and triumphs hold?

Aumerle:
For aught I know, my lord, they do.

York:
You will be there, I know.

Aumerle:
If God prevent not, I purpose so.

(ll.52-55)

However, if I overplay this rudeness, there's a danger that Aumerle will come across as nothing more than a surly teenager. I was chatting about this with Tim [Carroll], who reminded me that the most important thing in this scene is the story of the play. You can spend a great deal of time looking at the relationship between Aumerle and his parents, but the most important thing for me to remember when I enter the scene is that I’m reading a secret letter that I quickly have to try and hide. Any implied family relationships always have to take second place to the story of the play. Later in Act V, when the Duchess arrives and begs the King for Aumerle's life, against the wishes of her husband, these family relationships are now central to this story. It would be unheard of for a lady, even a Duchess, to go against the wishes of her husband in the presence of the King (she pleads for Aumerle's life), and even more unheard of to then refuse a Royal command, (to stand up), three times. Her son is threatened; such is the extremity of the situation that any sense of etiquette goes out the window. I think one of the questions underpinning the play as a whole is to what extent should loyalty to the crown, or any authority to which you have sworn allegiance, affect your reaction to a particular situation. We’re only just starting to find answers to this question, but at that particular moment, loyalty to the crown and loyalty to the head of the family are swept away by hers, and Aumerle’s, desperation.

We’re starting to go for regular costume fittings now. I have to admit, my costume is amazing. I’ve been told that because of the fabrics that’ve been used to make it, together with all the gold thread, it's worth about £20,000. 400 years ago, it would have been worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, as would some of the clothes worn by the actors in the original Globe. It's interesting; clothes worn by those actors playing lords, nobles, kings and other high ranking characters 400 years ago would often have been donated to the company by members of the gentry. They were worth a fortune, even though the gentry would probably have the gold and jewels removed from the clothes before they gave them away. It's quite incredible to have a costume made especially for me. Luca [Costigliolo, Master of Clothing] and his team took very detailed measurements before making the costume, so if I lose or gain weight over the summer, I’m really going to suffer… The whole costume is going to look fantastic, even though it's mainly salmon-pink. Salmon-pink is not my colour. Still, it's a very rich colour, very ostentatious, very fitting for the character, I think. It's important for us to get into costume as soon as possible, because it really helps us to get to grips with Elizabethan etiquette and manners. Although we’ve done a lot of research and practice on how to bow correctly, how to present ourselves etc. The clothing really does help you to get your ‘Elizabethan head’ on, and since every character is a product of their environment, this will be vital in the later stages of rehearsals.

Back to top

Character Notes 3

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

I’m feeling a lot more confident about Aumerle. He's developed in the last couple of weeks. Though I’m not a leading character and I don’t drive the action of a scene as such, you have to interact constantly with the characters who are speaking lines. I’m finding with Edward II that in a way it's easier to have lines as there's more material to build on. With fewer lines, you have to be able to react; other people bounce their speeches and actions off you, and that forms the basis of your position. As the leading actors have made decisions about their roles during rehearsals, the play started to develop a more definite structure, and I could really begin to decide what I wanted to do with Aumerle. That framework gives me confidence. During the run in Middle Temple Hall we had lots of note sessions and felt we could tinker with scenes – especially during our first week – but I found that the audience reaction was helpful too. They let you know when you’re telling the story properly. They look attentive, though I do find it harder to gauge the audience reaction at Middle Temple Hall than at the Globe.

In both instances you can see the audience, but the demographics are completely different. The Globe audience has a huge spread including tourists, students of drama or literature, and people who just wandered in from the street. In a way it's misleading to think of the ‘audience’ as a regular mass because the people within that body are so varied. However, a Globe audience generally feels like they’re eager for a good time whatever the play, while Middle Temple Hall audiences were waiting to be entertained in a more passive, reverential way. The environment at Middle Temple Hall is quite intimidating. Stained glass mirrors and dark wood fosters a quieter atmosphere. There were shows where applause at the end was rapturous but it was only really at the end that a reaction was evident. Tickets a Middle Temple Hall were more expensive than Globe yard tickets so that makes a difference; the audiences tended to be a bit older. Having said that, there were scenes where I felt the audience at Middle Temple Hall were really tuned in. That space was fantastic for the parliament scene (IV.1), and in my opening address I use the audience as the ‘princes and noble lords’ (l.19). I look directly at them and they lean forward, and play their part. Richard has a similar moment of connection when he hands out the flowers, and the exchange of an object makes the link more obviously. On the Globe stage the audience got more involved; I came right down to the front for the parliament scene and during the series of challenges people would hand me odd things to throw down when I asked for ‘some honest Christian’ to trust me with a gage. I improvised with caps, scarves, a glove… even a lighter. You just carry on with the scene and return everything after the jig. I think there were a couple of people who wanted to hand me things at Middle Temple Hall but they restrained themselves.

The audience entered through our dressing room at Middle Temple Hall and this changed the dynamic between us – the novelty wore off quickly. I’m quite a private person and I felt exposed listening to everyone pass through, commenting on our costumes and things without actually talking to us. I usually ended up walking to the other side of the room. One of the parts of a production that I really enjoy is the laughing and joking just before you go onstage, and because it took so long to get changed at Middle Temple Hall, there was plenty of time for joking around together. You didn’t want to be in your underpants when the audience was coming through, but at times they sort of cut into that. It was certainly interesting. It made me think about when a show actually begins – in other theatres houselights etc. signal a beginning but at the Globe and especially at Middle Temple Hall, with the entrance through our dressing room, that sign-system has been altered.

I’ve changed the way I play some scenes for the Globe – we’re further into the run and as I said, the space is completely different. The nature of the ‘beach scene’ especially has developed. At III.2 Richard has just returned from Ireland and finds his troops have abandoned him in favour of Bolingbroke. He has a semi-breakdown and Aumerle responds

Comfort, my liege. Why looks your grace so pale?
(III.2.75)

Richard tells Aumerle that 20,000 of his men have deserted. He knows that it is likely he’ll be deposed. The last lines of this speech could be his reflection on what is already happening – everyone who desires safety is leaving his side – or a final instruction for the remainder of his troops:

All souls that will be safe fly from my side,
For time hath set a blot upon my pride

Aumerle then says ‘Comfort, my liege. Remember who you are.’ There's a choice here; Aumerle can be hard, almost bullying Richard into action. Bullying isn’t the right word – cajoling maybe. There's force behind his words. Later I decided that Aumerle's manner towards Richard at this point should be softer, more to do with reassurance than reprimand because our relationship is close. Aumerle loves Richard and their families are related. In fact, the reason I was so hard on Richard in the first place was that I’d imagined him as a brother and I know you talk to family in a different way. When you’re tender you can be a bit more loving, and when you’re hateful you can be a bit more hateful. The reaction I got from Richard (Mark Rylance) so much better when I softened. He realises that he hasn’t been completely abandoned and that he is loved. Whereas earlier in the run I’d thought that the line should say ‘Don’t you know who you are? Pull yourself together – you’re the King of England. Be the King.’ This was much more revealing about Aumerle as it suggested that he needed Richard to fulfil his proper role as leader. Again, I’ve found I could use the audience as part of this scene. A king is a ruler of the people and when I told him to ‘Remember who you are’, I made him look out at the audience: they became his people. So it is possible to make a very direct connection with the audience at Middle Temple Hall and the Globe just then.

Aumerle's relationship with his father (the Duke of York) in the first scene has become much warmer at the Globe, probably because I’m more relaxed and you end up playing the situation rather than plotting a journey. If I’m in a good mood then I’ll be very nice to Bill (Stewart, York) and if I’m not I’ll use the minimum in terms of courtesy. Act V is a different story – it's quite arrogant to talk about where your journey is taking you when it's the play that takes me along in Act V: I’m in conflict with my father, and while the texture might change from day to day, the way we play it basically stay the same. I still have the same feelings of anger and betrayal and frustration that I had at Middle Temple Hall. York will always choose his allegiance to the King over Aumerle. One of the difficult things about Aumerle's character is the way he seemed to change sides, especially in the first act. In our production we decided that Aumerle will second Bolingbroke during the challenges, and in the first scene we have a couple of moments that help us develop a relationship; we make eye contact, and Liam grabs my shoulder for moral support when Mowbray unleashes the stream of abuse in I.3. The audience might miss these smaller things but it all contributes towards our general idea. I feel Aumerle is really only duplicitous when Richard asks about the parting in I.4 ‘And say, what store of parting tears where shed?’ Aumerle gives an excuse for his tears – the wind got in his eyes. He seems to go take the trouble because he recognises that Richard is wary and jealous of Bolingbroke. From this point he increasingly finds himself in a situation where loyalty becomes a struggle and perhaps he wavers. I hope my closer connection with Bolingbroke emphasises that problem.

Aumerle is a kind of pressure point for the play's themes of conflicting allegiance. His close relation with Bolingbroke in the early scenes foregrounds the moment when he turns against Bolingbroke and gives King Richard his support. As far as Aumerle is concerned, Bolingbroke pledged his loyalty to the King and this pledge has been broken. I see them as traitors because they swore to uphold the monarchy and they fail to do this in a radical way. Bolingbroke tries to make a distinction – he's challenging the law – but usurping the King follows on naturally and Aumerle find this unacceptable. He's perfectly justified in maintaining this position. I see Aumerle himself as usurped from his own position at court because of his loyalty to Richard. The parliament scene (IV.1) charts the emergence of a tyrant; Bolingbroke invites challenges from his enemies and any opposition is just carted off – the Bishop of Carlisle and the Queen's faction, for example. The first half of the play ends with Bolingbroke sending word via Northumberland that all he wants is the return of his lands and titles. Next minute he's accepting the crown, visibly taking it from Richard. Aumerle is only branded as a traitor because his side lost and it's the victor's privilege to write history. Though you obviously have to have some sympathy with your character to perform a role, even before casting I’d always thought Aumerle was harshly treated. Allegiances in the play are so complex that you can’t make clear-cut judgments. It's all about shades of grey and that's why you get Henry IV parts 1 and 2 because to some extent everyone in Richard II is guilty. The repercussions of Richard's deposition continue to ripple throughout history and Bolingbroke as Henry IV must deal with them. His position on the divine rights of kings changes substantially once he wears a crown. Kings were seen as elected by God to rule over earth and Henry has to cope with the guilt that stems from Richard's murder, especially once he has taken the crown. Edward II is an interesting comparison because there isn’t the same stress on the divine. Edward clashes with his nobles over low-bred Gaveston's influential position and this puts the emphasis on an earthly hierarchy in crisis.

I’m starting to think more about Edward II now. I did readings for Young Mortimer, Young Spencer and Edward's queen, Isabella. I went for Isabella because she's a real challenge though my first impressions were mixed. Her initial speeches begin with lamentation – Young Mortimer asks where she is going in I.4 and she replies

Unto the forest, gentle Mortimer,
To live in grief and baleful discontent.

Two scenes later she's left alone onstage and begins ‘O miserable and distressed queen!’ Everything sounded like a moan which is understandable because Edward does treat her badly but it's not very endearing. My ideas changed significantly after I started some close reading. She's on an emotional roller-coaster and I think her journey is one of the most interesting in the whole play. I’m noticing similarities with Aumerle actually – her loyalty is put under incredible pressure as well. Aumerle lost his place at court; Isabella's place in Edward's heart is usurped by Gaveston – which puts her in a very exposed position, politically speaking. She has more lines than Aumerle and I’ve found I get a lot out of Edward II rehearsals because that greater degree of verbal interaction opens up a wider range of possibilities. You have to know the other characters almost as well as your own because each has their own prejudice; it's important to decipher statements and find out where the truth lies for your character. Pembroke casts Isabella as a saint ‘Hard is the heart that injures such a saint’ (I.4.191) for example and later she's called the ‘wall of France’. The verse is less complicated in terms of feeding you material but while statements made seem more clear-cut, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the characters are straightforward. There's an alternative for Isabella in Kent's line '[…] For Mortimer/ And Isabel do kiss, while they conspire.

At the moment I’m mostly concentrating on finding where I fit in the play's journey.

Back to top

Character Notes 4

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

Last time I talked about Aumerle's loyalty, I said that he is loyal to Richard and that he wavers at the end of the play. Well, my view of Aumerle has changed over this last week and I’d disagree with that interpretation now. It's not that he's undergone a huge transformation – as though he was a fascist and now he's suddenly communist – but I do like Aumerle more than I did earlier and he's changed subtly but significantly as a result. I’m less inclined to think his loyalty to Richard is ‘wavering’. A lot of that is to do with me really; I’m getting to the stage where I’ve stopped talking about Aumerle as somebody else and I’ve realised he's not a million miles away from me. There's some common ground I think I rejected – his arrogance… well, I can be arrogant too, in a different context. Some mentioned at rehearsals about Aumerle's arrogance and it struck me that there was this side of his character and it was a perfectly valid view, but at the same time it's dangerous to use characteristics as labels. There's a difference between ‘playing’ arrogant and being arrogant. Anyway, in the parliament scene (IV.1) when Aumerle is repeatedly accused of the duke of Gloucester's death, his denials are not arrogant in a simplistic way: when we did an exercise in rehearsal that involved giving the speeches as actors in an impersonal way, we found that those speeches really do come from a very personal space. There's a rawness to it, which could become comedic with characters just saying ‘You’re a liar’, ‘No, you’re the liar’ and so on. It is overblown, but honour is a deeply personal concept and the challenges bring this into the public realm in a very immediate way – people talk about the split between the public and the private but really in Richard II, there is no such division. The same thing happens in politics today. The public ‘political’ sphere is very much rooted in and grows out of the private, emotional space of the character: it is always, to a lesser or greater extent personal. If you don’t have any conviction then you’re not a politician. This is obviously an idealised view, but I think that's how it should be.

If the public and private spheres intersect in this way, then you have to ask again what treason actually means from your point of view. One could say that Aumerle remains loyal to Richard then wavers at the end in Act V, or that Aumerle is loyal to Richard until Richard makes continued loyalty all but impossible. If Aumerle decided in the parliament scene that ‘ok, Richard is going to abdicate, I’ve done my duty to him and he's no longer king – my duty is to Bolingbroke’, then he could be accused of treason as easily as the Duke of York sees treason in his son's involvement in the plot against Henry IV. In the parliament scene Aumerle looks for support from Henry and the other lords but finds himself totally isolated. He sees the upshot of the Bishop of Carlisle's protest and the injustice of what's happening, which shocks him because Carlisle is also Richard's ally; Aumerle recognises a similarity between his own loyalty and Carlisle's destruction. When Richard enters and is asked to read out a list of his crimes, it is clear that he's being treated abominably – this wasn’t in the original deal, and shows just how little power he has left. Phaeton has descended. Yet Aumerle continues to support Richard beyond the point where it is politically safe. Different factions have different versions of the truth in this play, and accordingly they have different definitions of treason: Aumerle finds himself on the wrong side of those definitions without wavering as such. He has very little influence and his means of survival are jeopardised. What would you do? Changing sides is a pragmatic and necessary move that Aumerle makes at the eleventh hour.

I also mentioned earlier that I thought Aumerle was really only duplicitous when he gives his report of Bolingbroke's farewell to Richard. But there's the possibility that he's lying in a much more brazen way throughout IV.1. I haven’t actually discussed this with Tim (Carroll, Master of Play), but certainly it's something to explore during the run. Basically, in that scene he's accused of murdering the Duke of Gloucester – there's no proof and Bolingbroke, who manages the scene, has just accused Mowbray of the murder. In my version of history, Aumerle does not murder Gloucester – Bagot testifies against Aumerle in order to save himself. But maybe Aumerle's arrogant bluff is cover for something darker.

The parliament scene is central because it involves a number of important betrayals. When Aumerle enters he doesn’t know what he's letting himself in for; he doesn’t know that Bagot's going to be brought in and when Bagot does come in, he doesn’t know what he's going to say. Aumerle has a double shock – he's accused by someone who has everything to gain by his downfall, and then Bolingbroke orders him to stand up and face the charges:

Cousin, stand forth, and look upon that man.
(IV.1.6)

My response is to ask ‘Why should I?’

What answer should I make this base man?
Shall I so much dishonour my fair stars
On equal terms to give him chastisement?
Either I must, or have mine honour soiled
With the attainder of his slanderous lips.
(IV.1.18-23)

Bagot's trying to implicate me to get himself out of a very nasty situation. Bolingbroke knew he was going to bring in Bagot – did he know he would accuse Aumerle? Perhaps. Bolingbroke's address ‘cousin’ especially draws attention to the strain different relationships are placed under – despite the personal connection, Bagot's charge must be answered, and I think for Aumerle that in itself is a betrayal. The question for me now is essentially to do with negotiating your loyalty to a system: you can support a system but when the system changes how do you change with it? The system at the start of the play suits Aumerle. He's in a privileged position – he has the ear of the king and a belief in the monarchical system founded on divine right, which cannot be changed just because you take exception to the way the king rules. That's a bone of contention between Aumerle and the Duke of York who is very pragmatic with his allegiance. Aumerle is the one who is trying to convince Richard not to give up and Richard rejects that support: ‘Beshrew thee, cousin, which didst lead me forth…’ (III.3.200) At the end of III.3, Aumerle is faced with a situation where Richard has given up and is about to be imprisoned in the Tower. He has utterly lost control. I’m wondering to what extent Richard did give up or whether his abdication was forced; at the moment I think Richard packs it in. When Bolingbroke asks for the restoration of his revenues, Richard anticipates losing everything in an almost hysterical way:

What must the King do now? Must he submit?
The King shall do it. Must he be deposed?
The King shall be contented.
(III.3.142-4)

And all the while Aumerle is trying to keep Richard calm and reasonable, whispering into his ears ‘just be patient, flatter Bolingbroke now, then take action’:

No, good my lord, let's fight with gentle words
Till time lend friends, and friends their helpful swords.
(III.3.130-1)

This is practical advice (though ‘No, good…’ hints at a pessimistic ‘no good’ before Aumerle completes the line and changes the sense). Anyway – it's a long way from the defeatist attitude with which Richard offers up the crown and his life. The way Richard abdicates from all his responsibilities is appalling, without really considering his country or supporters – without analysing the effects of his actions beyond his own personal misery. Aumerle is eventually left with only one option: as Richard said ‘All souls that will be safe fly from my side’ (III.2.76), but I don’t take his advice. I think Aumerle honours his own idea of loyalty and until act V nothing he does can be described as treasonable. Even at this very late stage in the day, racing to Henry before the Duke of York is an entirely practical decision, an instinct for survival. He has lost everything; his allies, titles, power, trust – along with any hope of reinstating these things by putting Richard back on the throne. Things couldn’t look much bleaker. You have to do what you have to do. What remains is the fact that Richard's restoration is in my self-interest. As I said, personal and public or political motivations are deeply interlinked.

Back to top

Character Notes 5

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

Isabella is one of the most challenging roles I’ve played yet. She's emotionally strung up throughout the whole play; I’ve come a long way from my first impression of her as a character who moans a lot. She's distraught because she knows at the beginning of the play that her position is being usurped. Edward is in love with Gaveston, so much so that he almost wants to share the crown with him, so it's not just a question of love: power and status are also at stake. This would have a devastating effect on Isabella. She is very much in love with Edward. Also, her power as Queen is very much dependent on others – King Edward and later Mortimer Junior. The lords force Gaveston's exile and that removes a threat to Isabella, but then Edward makes her security dependent on Gaveston's repeal. It's a real catch-22 situation and she has to come to a massive compromise; she manages the repeal skilfully and there's a single point here when everything seems perfect. Edward is elated at Gaveston's return and literally appreciates his queen's hand in this as he proclaims a second marriage

Once more receive my hand and let this be
A second marriage ‘twixt thyself and me.
(I.4.36-7)

They’re close but this togetherness is entirely dependent on Gaveston, which Isabella conveniently pushes to the back of her mind. And things become worse than ever very quickly: the lords are up in arms about Gaveston's increased influence and Isabella compromises and compromises until she can compromise no more. I think the real clincher is when Spenser Junior and Baldock come into the equation – there's an obvious attraction between Edward and Spencer, actually, there's Isabella's lines in scene four:

In saying this, thou wrong’st me, Gaveston.
Ist not enough that thou corrupt’st my lord,
And art a bawd to his affections,
But thou must call mine honour thus into question.
(I.4.150-3)

When Spencer Junior arrives, it's as though a whole new clique is developing and this marginalises Isabella even further. Her next appeal to Edward draws a blank and basically I feel that this pushes her into the arms of Mortimer Junior who's leading the faction of disaffected lords. She is alone and abandoned to a hopeless mission in France, so she meets Mortimer Junior at what is pretty much her lowest point. He has just escaped from prison after Edward defeated the opposition party and understandably has grievances against the King; to unite with Isabella is as much about political sense as affection. She goes some way to legitimatising his cause and when the Lords amass a second army, she's the figurehead. Prince Edward is duly installed under the protectorship of Mortimer Junior; basically he intends to be a puppet-master. On her return to England, Isabella is in a truly powerful position – just before and after the battle – but none of this power belongs to her alone, it's tied up in her position as Queen and Mortimer Junior soon emerges as the driving force behind the new regime. Where Shakespeare stresses the divine right of kings in Richard II, Marlowe doesn’t mention it in Edward II. This play is political and personal whereas Richard II has an additional spiritual, ideological aspect. I think Edward II is more sensual or sexual and Isabella is part of that.

In terms of playing a woman, you get given a costume but the process works from inside out rather than outside in, for me at least. I avoided wearing the corset during rehearsal because first and foremost I’m playing a character and that character is a woman. Of course it's significant – I’ve found that the way I’m treated in rehearsals, that is, the way other characters react to me, is different because it takes into account my character's sex and status. I’m not just playing a woman. I’m playing a mother who happens to be a queen. All these headings only make up a fraction of the person. I’m just treating it as other parts – asking things like how does this person react to a given circumstance? It's what we do in workshops, asking ‘Who are you? Where are you? How do you do this?’ All these questions have to be asked. How I walk or manage to breathe in a corset comes later! In a way, the closer you come to realising a character, the more restrictions you place on yourself for things like how they might walk and so on. I suppose I’ve processed Isabella as I would any other role and things like the way I walk will only be convincing if the big things are convincing too – if it's believable that Isabella loves Edward and an audience can see how I feel as a mother about my son. There are some things I wouldn’t do as Isabella that I might do with another role though. I can make my voice very big and Isabella won’t be loud in that sort of forceful way. Her power is more to do with persuasion, in the sphere of influence rather than force. I guess it's a lot to do with charm and a certain amount of manipulation.

Aumerle in the parliament scene (, 4.1) is all bluff. Isabella on the other hand spends scene four working out where she stands… who her allies are, and who will respond well to her persuasion. There are several different lords and that's the great thing about working with good actors – the differences between the lords are made clear very quickly, so you can make sense of Isabella's varied approaches. There's Mortimer Senior, Mortimer Junior, Lancaster, Pembroke, and Northumberland; well, I find out that my charm will have no effect on three out of five. You pick the person with the most power who is likely to be most receptive – Mortimer Junior fits the bill, and my terms of address reflect that ‘Sweet, sweet Mortimer’ and so on. I’m also quite nice to Lancaster – ‘Gentle Lancaster’ – but less so to Northumberland because he's an obstacle. That's how I navigate a scene; it's done for you in a way. I’m not thinking ‘A woman would do this.’ Instead I think ‘this is what I have to do in order to achieve my objective’. While I am walking differently and my voice is slightly softer than normal, I’m not speaking in a voice pitched any higher than normal. Cosmetics and the other finishing touches to appearance will come later. At the moment I wear a skirt for rehearsals and that automatically changes the way I walk and how people relate to me – what I have to concentrate on is reaching an understanding the play, cerebrally and intellectually, and then I’ll begin to get a real feeling for the part. I know it's had a massive effect on me when I have understood on this level. I’ve never had a role effect me to this extent outside the rehearsal room and this isn’t necessarily because I’m playing a woman; it's an extremely emotional role and for a lot of the play I’m extremely isolated and abused. It's playing this woman, not just playing a woman that's having a big effect. I get frightened about generalisations and saying ‘playing a woman is like this’ so there's also the added pressure of intense specificity. I’m avoiding ‘feminine’ stereotypes like the plague.

I’ve just got back from a session with Giles [Block, Master of Verse]. We’ve been having weekly group sessions with the Masters of Verse and Voice [Stewart Pearce] which last for about an hour but you can ask for solo sessions if you want to do some individual work on your character. Today Giles and I went through the play from start to finish, looking at my lines. He read in for me, suggesting different meanings and subtext behind the verse – it really helps me to decide where emphasis should fall in order to convey the sense. Listening to a fresh voice read Isabella drew my attention to pressure-points in her speeches. Though the verse here is less complicated than in Richard II and it's written in quite a user-friendly way that often highlights emphasis, there are certainly parts that benefit from some extra attention to detail. One of the lines I looked closely at comes at the end of my soliloquy in act two, scene four. Isabella has decided to appeal to Edward one last time:

So well hast thou deserv’d, sweet Mortimer,
As Isabel could live with thee for ever.
In vain I look for love at Edward's hand,
Whose eyes are fixed on none but Gaveston.
Yet once more I’ll importune him with prayers…
(II.4.60-63)

We unpacked that last line ‘Yet once more I’ll importune him.’ Obviously it's an important point in the play and I’d been stressing the first syllable ‘yet’. Isabella's argument is inclining her towards Mortimer, but with l.63 she almost forcibly turns her thoughts back to Edward and ‘Yet’ sort of feels like a pivot or a point where you could make that separation clear. Giles also mentioned before that this stress pattern is natural, however there are some other possibilities. We tried putting the stress in different places and heard how that altered the meaning… if you put more emphasis on ‘once’, the line makes Isabella sound as though she's reaching the end of her tether with Edward, and this is really his last chance. She can sound quite angry which lends a twist to her ‘prayers’. There was a debate – Giles changed his mind three times! He's fantastic about aligning the meaning with the verse. I feel I’m much more aware of the choices inherent in Isabella's speeches. I’m certainly much more comfortable speaking verse in Edward II as a result of my experiences during Richard II. Also Tim Carroll [Master of Play] has been Master of Verse himself, so he's worked rigorously on that side of things.

Instead of working on my ‘female’ physicality with Glynn [Master of Movement], I’m hoping that this side of things will grow out of my work on character. I think there's a lot that the play tells you about Isabella and her manner and movement is part of that. I think if I approach as a physical exercise then I might impose things on her which are out of keeping with her character. Isabella and Aumerle won’t walk in the same way, of course. Even without the costume I found that. As I said, I want to avoid thinking about Isabella as a character who is primarily a woman.

Now is the most intense period of the season and it's going to continue like this for the next three weeks: we’re working hard at Edward II whilst Richard II continues to run at the Globe. I’m trying not to think too far ahead though because I prefer to take things as they come to me. I’ll concentrate on the character and the scenes; we can work on how these fit into the context of a final production later, especially during tech week, but because we’ve been playing Richard II since we started work on Edward II that experience informs our rehearsals. You don’t feel the insecurity of not knowing the people or the space; we’ve had chance to become familiar with the format and requirements of the stage. I don’t see any reason not to speak up and use the dimensions of the stage during rehearsals – there's any area taped out on the rehearsal room floor and pillars placed in equivalent positions so we can do just that. The play's grown in that stage space so tech weeks shouldn’t prove too problematic. Hopefully Edward II will hit the ground running.

After my work with Giles, I’ve become very aware that Isabella has a lot of soliloquies. They’re mostly in the first half of the play when she's extremely isolated: there's no one she can confide in and her status is an additional barrier that prevents anyone getting close enough to be a confidant. It's lonely at the top. While she appeals to the lords and does get their support to some extent, I feel she wants a more intimate connection and ideally this would be with her husband, but he's clearly rejected her in favour of Gaveston. She uses soliloquy to appeal to and confide in the audience because she hasn’t got anyone else, and there's definitely a transition towards the end of the play as she becomes more involved in dialogue, drawn into the action. It's not that she changes from a removed saint into a villainess. I think she can justify her actions and I’m sympathetic to her but it's not really for me to judge whether she's a sympathetic figure – what I do believe is that she's trapped in a situation where she can do nothing but react and a string of these reactions lead to her final position. Although love is not her only motivation, her relationship with Edward definitely provides fuel for her actions; there are different stages in Edward's rejection and Isabella's speeches reflect that: frustration, anger, retribution, guilt. Every speech that she makes seems to be coming from this well of anger and injustice. There's also the feeling that she never loves Mortimer Junior the way she loves Edward. That's my choice and I’m sticking to it! She needs Mortimer and so their relationship has a different kind of intensity – it's rooted in the predicament rather than a person. It’ll be interesting to see how the audience react.

Back to top