Who Were the Key People Behind the Globe?

The individuals connected to the Globe are historically significant not simply because of what they did, but because of what their roles reveal about the society they operated in.

James Burbage is the pivotal figure in the story of Elizabethan theatre. His trajectory — carpenter to actor to entrepreneur — mirrors the broader social mobility that theatre made possible, but also its limits. He secured the Earl of Leicester's patronage in 1574, built The Theatre in 1576, and died in 1597 still fighting legal battles over his lease. His career illustrates both the opportunities and the precariousness of theatrical life in Elizabethan England.

Richard and Cuthbert Burbage inherited their father's ambitions and his problems. Their decision to dismantle The Theatre in December 1598 was legally defensible but required nerve — they were exploiting a lease clause against a Puritan landlord who had expected to see the building forfeit. That they succeeded says as much about Elizabethan property law as it does about their boldness.

William Shakespeare's role as a sharer rather than simply a playwright is historically telling. By the late 1590s, theatre had become sufficiently legitimate and profitable that a man of his background could accumulate serious wealth through it — enough to buy a large house in Stratford and a coat of arms for his family. His financial stake in the Globe meant his interests as a writer and as a businessman were aligned, which may help explain the remarkable productivity of his output during this period.

Peter Street, often overlooked, represents a different kind of significance. The fact that Philip Henslowe immediately hired him to build the Fortune Theatre after the Globe was completed suggests that the skills required to build these complex structures were rare and in high demand — another sign of how rapidly and seriously the theatrical industry had grown.

⭐ Exam Tip: Individual significance questions reward analysis of what a person's role tells us about the wider period, not just a description of what they did. Shakespeare as a wealthy sharer tells us something about social mobility and the commercialisation of theatre. The Burbages as legal risk-takers tell us about the precarious relationship between theatre and property law. Always ask: what does this person's story reveal?

The 1572 Vagabonds Act — Control Dressed as Protection

The patronage system is sometimes presented as straightforwardly beneficial to theatre companies — and in practical terms, it was. But it is more accurately understood as a mechanism of state control that happened to suit theatre companies' interests as well as the Crown's.

The 1572 Vagabonds Act did not create patronage — it weaponised the absence of it. By classifying unattached actors as vagabonds, the Act forced theatre companies into a formal relationship with the nobility, making them legally accountable through their patron. A company that offended was not just embarrassing itself — it was embarrassing the nobleman whose name it bore. This created a powerful incentive for self-regulation that complemented the formal censorship of the Master of the Revels.

The Act also reflected genuine social anxieties. Masterless men — those without a clear place in the social hierarchy — were a source of deep unease in Elizabethan England. The theatre, with its transient companies and mixed audiences, sat uncomfortably close to this feared social category. Patronage resolved the anxiety by inserting theatre firmly into the existing hierarchical structure: actors became, in legal terms, servants of their noble patron.

The Earl of Leicester's company in 1574 established the template all subsequent companies followed
The Privy Council's creation of a "duopoly" in 1594 extended this logic further — two manageable companies were easier to monitor than a fragmented theatrical scene
Patronage cost nobles almost nothing financially, since companies were self-financing through ticket sales, making it an unusually cheap form of political and cultural influence

⭐ Exam Tip: The 1572 Act is strong evidence that the Crown's relationship with theatre was primarily about control, not cultural generosity. Patronage protected actors, but it also made them visible, accountable and ultimately easier to punish if they stepped out of line. This argument connects directly to censorship and the Essex Rebellion — use it to build a sustained line of analysis across your answer.

What Did Patrons Actually Get?

The mutual benefit of patronage is sometimes overstated. In reality, the balance of advantage shifted significantly across the period.

In the 1570s, when theatre was legally precarious and socially disreputable, patronage was genuinely protective — a nobleman's name was a shield. By the 1590s, as the Lord Chamberlain's Men became fashionable at court and Shakespeare's reputation grew, the dynamic had changed. The company's prestige arguably enhanced the patron's reputation as much as the reverse. When the Lord Chamberlain's Men were summoned to perform at court three times in 1595, it was the company's distinction that made them worthy of royal attention, not simply their patron's status.

This shift is historically significant. It suggests that by the end of Elizabeth's reign, theatre had achieved a degree of cultural legitimacy that no longer depended entirely on aristocratic protection. The Globe, owned collectively by its sharers, was a commercially viable institution in its own right. The patronage system remained legally necessary, but its practical significance had diminished.

⭐ Exam Tip: The best answers on patronage show how the relationship between theatre companies and their patrons changed across the period — this is direct evidence of change over time. Theatre moved from dependent to semi-independent, from disreputable to prestigious. That trajectory is the story of Elizabethan theatre in miniature.

Company Structure as Social Microcosm

The internal organisation of the Lord Chamberlain's Men reproduced Elizabethan social hierarchy in miniature — and the Globe's collective ownership model represented a significant, if partial, departure from it.

Sharers, hirelings and apprentices mapped roughly onto the gentry, yeomanry and servants of broader Elizabethan society. But the sharer model was genuinely unusual. In most Elizabethan industries, ownership and labour were clearly separated. At the Globe, the senior actors were also the owners — they bore the financial risk and took the profits, but they also performed on the stage every afternoon. This blurring of the line between capital and labour was not typical of the period.

Shakespeare's career illustrates the possibilities this created. He entered the Lord Chamberlain's Men as an actor and playwright, became a sharer, co-financed the Globe, and retired to Stratford a wealthy man. This was not the trajectory available to a hireling or an apprentice — the hierarchy within the company was real and consequential. But for those who reached sharer status, the theatre offered a path to prosperity and social respectability that few other professions could match for men of his background.

⭐ Exam Tip: Company structure is worth using as evidence that theatre both reflected and, in limited ways, challenged Elizabethan social norms. The sharer model was an unusual form of collective ownership in a rigidly hierarchical society. Noting this complexity — rather than simply saying the company mirrored wider society — shows analytical sophistication.

GCSE Elizabethan England 1568-1603 AQA

People and Patronage