Shakespeare's Players turned away from Kingston-upon-Thames

Almost a decade after Shakespeare’s death, his players The King’s Men appeared in Kingston-upon-Thames only to be turned away by the town authorities.

In fact, records show that the actors were paid not to perform not once but TWICE between 1624 and 1627.

The entry recorded in the town chamberlain’s account is a stern one: ‘Item given to the Kinges players because they should nott play in the Towne Hall nor in the Towne for the space of ffyve yeares x s.’

Kingston - as well as London -- was suffering from a severe plague in 1625, so the dismissal of players may have been determined by concern for public health rather than local puritan attitudes.

The company was not easily discouraged, however, as they appeared soon thereafter, in 1626-7, only to be paid once again ‘to forbear to play in the Towne x s.’

A decade later they made a final attempt, in 1633-4, and were once again rewarded with 10 shillings though it is not clear whether an exception was made this one time to allow performance by the usually hostile town authorities who were unafraid to turn away royal troupes during this period.

Although they may not have actually performed in the town, the timber-framed Tudor town hall in Kingston’s marketplace was named as a space to be protected from unwanted entertainments. The hall had been built in 1505 but was demolished in 1840. The present Market House, a handsome Grade II* listed building, replaced it on the same site.

In a 1640 edition of Shakespeare's poems, Leonard Digges (a 17th-century poet) provides a celebratory poem to the opening of the book, in which he praises Shakespeare at the expense of other playwrights.

He says that the King's Men remain the supreme London company because of Shakespeare's plays, and advises other playwrights to sell their works to other companies instead.

He writes that even Ben Jonson's plays are not well attended at the Blackfriars, but that Shakespeare's plays still fill the galleries and boxes.

Tanya Hagen, Bibliographer, REED writes: "Let’s assume that Digges is being a bit hyperbolic here: it is, after all, a commendatory verse prefatory to a volume of poems which presumably the printer/publisher wants to sell, so it’s in everybody’s best interest to make Shakespeare look as good as possible.

Digges suggests here that playwrights need not bother trying to sell their work to the King’s Men, but should peddle their plays to the less distinguished companies at the Red Bull, Cockpit/Phœnix and Fortune.

But he is factually wrong when he says that Shakespeare’s plays continue to make the King’s Men the premiere London company.

At this juncture, Beaumont and Fletcher are a massive popular phenomenon; by comparison, Shakespeare’s reputation is definitely on the wane.

Shakespeare never entirely disappears from the public consciousness, but it is not until the eighteenth century that we see a clear ascendancy over his contemporaries in the popular imagination.

At least some of this has to do with the publication circumstances of his plays during the early c18th, and with certain regulatory aspects of the early- to mid-c18th theatre, which made it prudent to build a season on revivals of ‘old plays,’ rather than investing in new works.

In ongoing squabbles between Royalist and Puritan interest, moreover, the early theatre became a symbol of English nationalism; to be loyal to the throne was to celebrate the theatre as a unique manifestation of Englishness.

Shakespeare became a convenient figurehead for that interest."