Talk:Punch and Judy

No one "owns" this page

One poster, who contributes exclusively to this page, apparently feels free to delete all other contributors at will. Possibly he (or she) is struggling under the impression that he "owns" the Punch and Judy page. This is a misapprehension. The pages on Wikipedia become, as I understand it, the property of the public, and not one individual. Neither can anyone use Wikipedia to rewrite history to his or her own personal tastes and liking.

That said, a neutral synopsis of the skeletal outline of the traditional play, as it loosely existed for centuries, is in accordance with the informational, educational and practical purposes of Wikipedia. I will continue to restore the section as it becomes deleted for no logical or impersonal reason.

(BTW, you're free to provide proof of the Victorian "great change" that "came over the performance" as it "adapted itself to a family audience". You can do this by linking to and/or citing authentic published scripts and sources from the period, just like everyone else would be obliged to do to back up their own claims. That way, we don't have to simply take your word for it. Reference, please...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.16 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--81.152.111.82 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely said; couldn't agree more.Joe Suggs (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern Punch Toned Down?

Having grown up in Germany I was only ever exposed to the German Kasperl but the shows I've seen lack any wife beating and child murdering. It might be intresting to note that the modern Punch has (atleast in Germany) been toned down quite a bit.

I'm just not sure how or where to add it.

---

I'm not convinced by this "toned down kicker sentence". More than "toned down", it seems to be precisely opposite in meaning to the sentence it is replacing. —Paul A 07:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The original version of this sentence is one of the great treasures of Wikipedia, and in my opinion should have a preservation order on it. It has been on BDAODN for a very long time, where the original poster said he couldn't think of a better way of putting it. I can't either. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed -- the current version just seems to lack the punch of the original. (ducks vegetables) Reverted. --Aponar Kestrel 17:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Absolutely. For the sake of not being sure that you can "perform appalling acts..." I'm making it "featuring as it does a ... psychopath who visits appalling acts of violence...", but I can't really think of anything better than the general sentence as it stands. It's hilarious; so is Punch and Judy. It's non-PC; so is Punch and Judy. The comment is a WikiClassic™ and must be kept. Wooster 17:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

... I see no problem with to perform an act, whether of a play or otherwise, but to visit an act sounds wrong to me. Changing to to commit an act, which is hopefully dialect-neutral. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:50, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Ta. Visit sounded (to my ear, but my language can be a bit old-fashioned) better than perform, but I knew visit wasn't quite right either. I thought changing it would probably provoke someone into getting the word I meant.  : ) Wooster 17:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) Postscriptum: Just checked some online dictionaries, and I reckon that to perform an act doesn't quite ring true for British usage. You could perform an action in the UK, and visiting sth. upon s.o. is definitely considered older usage. Commit sounds far better (just try running perform a crime through your head!)--once again, thanks.

A WikiClassic™ indeed :)

classic or not, i must ask if it truly qualifies as a neutral point of view. it seems very one sided against poor mr punch, really.

Strongly vote to keep restored line!

Featuring, as it does, a deformed, child-murdering, wife-beating psychopath who commits appalling acts of violence and cruelty upon all those around him and escapes scot-free, it is greatly enjoyed by small children. quercus robur 23:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. PeteVerdon 02:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And thirded. JHCC 03:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4thed. Wooster 11:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fifthed. One of the best lines on Wikipedia. Slight revisions at most (i.e. I don't think you can "commit cruelty upon" someone). Silence 21:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sixthed.Joe Suggs (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seventhed. "Commit" is correct, as it applies to "acts of cruelty", not just "cruelty". doublesigh 00:57 (GMT+1), 25th Feb 2011

Wikipedia is not a prose repository, If Dickens himself were writing for wikipedia his posts should still be deleted for if they violate NPOV Makenji-san 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Shame however that you have unilaterally chosen to delete the piece of text in question despite 5 votes otherwise quercus robur 01:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I overstepped my bounds, I have reinstated the line, although I am highly tempted to put a NPOV tag on the page. Makenji-san 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What's POV about it? The tone may not be neutral, but the facts in the sentence are all clearly established. J•A•K 00:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not POVed so much as it's original research. If we wanted to adhere to Wikipedia's standards exactly, a source would need to be cited showing (or arguing) that (1) "it is greatly enjoyed by small children", (2) Punch is a "deformed, child-murdering, wife-beating psychopath who commits appalling act of violence and cruelty upon all those around him and escapes scot-free", and (3) there is a causal relationship between 2 and 1. Ideally, one of us should try to get that line published somewhere, so we can simply cite the line from outside of Wikipedia and be a-ok—but that's probably not a feasible option.

However, I'd say that there is a very strong case for letting the rules slide slightly just this once, on the basis of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Sometimes Wikipedia is actually benefited by not removing an unusual, but delightful, bit of text; having interesting and creative writing is less important than being properly encyclopedic, but when the interesting and creative writing isn't dramatically unencyclopedic, one might as well keep it and get the best of both worlds. Plus it will benefit plenty of people (by brightening up their day a bit), and won't hurt anyone (I expect we'll get much more objection from rules-lawyering WP editors than from people who are genuinely offended on Mr. Punch's behalf :)), and that's all that really matters in the end. The true purpose of "WP:NOR" and "WP:NPOV" isn't to cripple us from ever putting interesting and diverse text in our articles, but to prevent bias and avoid edit wars over which POV to use. That doesn't apply here, so a little leniency is best, in my view. Let the line stay. -Silence 00:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! quercus robur 11:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote keep. Klosterdev 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since '06 the line has been edited such that most of its "punch", as it were, is lost. I would like to see the original wording restored, if other were also amenable. Jfire (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Vote Against Line

It's just stupid, its not clever, it's lame.

It also doesn't even make sense. The cruelty of the puppet isn't why children enjoy it. That's a stupid assumption.

All this line does is make wikipedia look like it's written by 12 year olds.--Capsela 03:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The line should stay. It is funny and it is true. I've observed many Punch and Judy shows and it does feature such horrors as outlined and also frequently amuses little kids. But do the horrors amuse? Kind of hard to see what else there is in the show really. When I was a kid, I always found it funny because of them. It's been long historically established that comedy and tragedy are seperated by a very fine line. As Steve Coogan said, "the best comedy is when you don't know whether to laugh or cry". Philip --129.11.76.215 07:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest an alternative. Put an "although" in front of the line. Geez, let's get a grip here people. Come back to reality from cyberspaceland. --Capsela 17:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That was tried, once. It resulted in the sentence being "precisely opposite in meaning" (see above discussion) and was generally disagreed with. Small children do in fact enjoy Punch and Judy shows because of the cruelty and violence, not despite it. I'm actually astonished you could think that the latter is the case instead of the former. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The line is a violation of NPOV. How the fuck do you know what goes on in the minds of children? Are you a psychic? Do children enjoy puppet shows without violence? Do they laugh at shows without violence? You don't know shit. And wikipedia is full of morons like yourself. This whole encyclopedia is polluted by garbage points of view, propagated by loser nerds who have nothing better to do than try to be clever online.--Capsela 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are in violation of WP:CIV & WP:NPA. Besides, I think you are looking at this out of scope. We are talking about puppet murder here. I for one would like to see more puppet murder, I don't feel that our kids get enough as it is. Kids like violence, I've personally observed children laughing at slap-stick antics on classic and modern cartoons where characters are hurt.Cfpresley 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Punch?

That's news to me. So they're one of those celebrity couples where she's remained Miss Judy instead of Mrs Punch?

Does either puppet have a first name, as far as anybody knows? -- Smjg 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Judy is normally a first name, so she's Mrs Judy Punch. We never know Mr Punch's first name.

In that case, for consistency it should be called Punch and Punch. Does anybody call it this in practice? -- Smjg 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. That would be stupid. PeteVerdon 11:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When is Punch ever called "Mr. Punch"? It's Punch and Judy, after all. As far as I know, Punch is his first name (a belief backed by his supposed origin in Pulcinella).

I think Punch is a first name -- and that we have no idea what Mr. would be. The Mr. should be eliminated......... I will do that

no mention of the golliwog?

He usually narrates the whole show(at least he does in the show on the front in Llandudno)

A 'Golliwog' as such has never been part of the mainstream show - although individual performers have introduced all sorts of puppets into their own shows. The black character in Punch and Judy has never really found a valid role once 'Minstrel shows' were banished from respectability. There's no real reason in why any of the characters (the Doctor or the Policeman for example) can't be played by a black puppet. Glyn Edwards 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV comment

Removed a line about "Punch and Judy politics"; I couldn't find a way to make it NPOV. Mostly because, as far as I can tell from its Google hits, it's a fairly vacuous insult and therefore an example of itself.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pulcinella

"The figure of Punch derives ultimately from the stock character of Pulcinella."

This is only historical speculation, and has never been confirmed (in fact, it is a theory based entirely on the fact that Pulcinella was later called Punchinello). 24.17.154.203 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Professor DeWitt and Sarasota Jungle Gardens

Although there seems to be considerable consensus about including information in this article about a Punch and Judy show by "Professor DeWitt", a member of the college of professors, whose performance has become an annual tradition at Sarasota Jungle Gardens, for more than a decade (at this classically old-style Florida vacation destination in the USA)—one editor keeps taking the various insertions out. It might be helpful to explore this proprietary behavior by one editor who presumes a commanding and exclusive role over others. Wikipedia is based upon consensual co-operation among editors. Repeatedly removing information for which others seem to have established a consensus to keep, seems rather _________________ (fill in the blank—that is the way to do it). The obvious difference in opinions deserves an explanation for objection and a willingness to explore a rational common ground that is acceptable to all for inclusion—rather than initiating a heavy handed edit war. 13 June 2006

correction: Professor DeWitt has been invited to perform every year at Sarasota Jungle Gardens for over sixteen years. He also has performed at Broadstairs, Covent Gardens, Margate, and other traditional locations -- that's the way to do it, please. ------ June 16,2006

Don't know about "considerable consensus" on this - but this entry seems just a commercial plug for someone's gig and the related venue. This article is about Punch and Judy and isn't a listings opportunity for performers. It is also the case that Prof DeWitt is not a member of the Punch and Judy College of Professors although he may be a member of one of the other organisations. Colin Phelun 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) June 16 2006.

How does one check to see who is a member of the college... ? June 16, 2006

The College enquiry line is enquiries@punchandjudy.org and they can resolve any issues concerning membership of their association. Colin Phelun June 17, 2006

As a Councillor of The College I can confirm that Prof. DeWitt is not one of our members. We did issue a media statement in support of his stance when there was a complaint about his show reported in the UK Press last Summer but we made it clear that he wasn't a member and we hadn't seen his performance. This can be seen on the media page at www.punchandjudy.org. Membership of our organisation is based on the policies of the Inner Magic Circle and criteria for membership are posted on our website (follow directions on the Site Map). We correct false claims as to membership wherever we find them. I also support the view that this article is about Punch and Judy and not a place for individual Profs to advertise. Glyn Edwards 10:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your stand to support the inclusion of another character in the show by Professor Brad DeWitt -- if Hitler can be lampooned, so can the contemporary parallels. I do not understand, however, If the article is about punch and judy, Why would it be a problem to mention the existence of a punch and judy show in USA for over sixteen years at a traditional tourist location -- similar to ones in UK? Isn't this an indication of its universal appeal? Excluding the individual professor is easy to understand if none are ever mentioned, that is more appropriate on the site for the venue. BTW Seems to me that there is a strong POV bias to Britain in the article, yet the origin is Italy, and the shows occur around the world, wouldn't it be appropriate to demonstrate the popularity? Perhaps that is the rub. ---- June 18, 2006

And then again perhaps the rub is that the anonymous author pushing for inclusion is indeed Prof. DeWitt wearing the cloak of invisibility? Seems pretty likely. At the moment there are no plugs on the page for individual Profs and that's a pretty level playing field. It's also consistent with Wikipedia policy on advertising and vanity issues. I'm sure Brits would enjoy seeing mention of the Punch show in other countries - but not as a thinly disguised ploy by performers plugging their act (or making false claims about their credentials) Colin Phelun 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. I expect a section on the Global Tradition would be a good idea. I know of enthusiasts and performers in Australia, Canada and the USA as well as Punch-nuts in Japan, Iran, Hog Kong and India. It would need to be global NPOV and not an opportunity for self-publicity though. Glyn Edwards 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Colin Phelun" is too suspicious -- and -- incorrect. The first entry for 18 June is mine -- where it ends with the POV bias as a rub. I thought the philosophy of Wikipedia also included taking editors as well intended, you are making a rather plain expression of distrust. (I find that people who do that are often projecting what their own behavior might be...) I took your word for it that you are in a position to claim that this professor is not in the college. I looked up the press release for details of the complaint and response in order to learn more about the information provided by "Glyn Edwards". I clearly accepted the opinions that there ought not to be any identification of professors in the article, only then asking about the inclusion of more information about venues in locations outside of Britain and frustration about the bias in the article. I see no effort to insert any of the struck information back into the article, and attempts have been made at discussion. If your intention is to inform, it ought to be cordial rather than inhospitable—otherwise you seem to imply that being a bully is appropriate for an editor involved in creating an article built in consensus. I believe that if you have a great deal of information on this topic you should take a leadership role instead of discouraging participation. Editors with cryptic names are just as anonymous as those without—how can that be an issue? Thanks for the willing consideration by "Glyn Edwards" I look forward to that section and perhaps a listing of venues where enthusiasts can find a Punch and Judy show wherever they might travel or live -- and I know of a good entry for Christmas time in Florida, too. ---- 18 June 2006

User:200.127.223.146's Gavriel addition

User:200.127.223.146 added the content below to the article, which I've removed based on a couple of concerns. The first is that I can find no mention of "Gavriel" nor of this poem, bringing up questions of notability as well as, hate to admit it, spamming or copyright violations. Apart from that, it isn't really encyclopedic-- this isn't a literature repository.

MrPunch and Judy are playing their games again. He chases her in their dreamt house swinging a marotte till she faints. Him, hunched and with a crooked nose, from Naples he came, in London he rose, no one’s more European than him. She, blonde and with a freckled face, with clear hints of highland ascendance, they both have a passion for violence and liquorices sticks with caramel.

The charfering homas sigh in contempt: “Mr Punch and Judy are playing their games again” and all the while the swazzling voice spats: “Take that and that and that and that!”

Author: Gavriel

Thats my two cents. --mordicai. 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Punch and Judy poster

I don't think this would add anything to the article, but I thought some of you might enjoy this Punch & Judy poster at the Library of Congress: Sioux City Art Center, 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.34.0 (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Simpsons reference

I am deleting the reference to the Simpsons, it has no relevence to the article, why the Simpsons as opposed to any number of modern day comparisons? If the author asserts that they are they are the best example then that is obviously a fan's opinion and definitely NPOV. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC

The author replies: The deleter misses the point that we're talking about oddball family slapstick drama - of which 'The Simpsons' is a prime contemporary example. Pointing out that Punch & Judy worked the same patch a few centuries earlier is totally relevant and is something often cited by Punch performers. What other current example - one as universally recognised - would serve as well? (And why would any reference to The Simpson's be "obviously a fan's opinion?" Do we have a Simpsonsophobe on the case?)

I'm not missing the point, but I fail to see why plucking out a current day example of the genre is encyclopedic. Where is your citation? If unsubstantiated it is most definitely your opinion and original research, which by definition is NPOV and should be deleted. If you can provide a citation, then fine, otherwise this is just fandom.70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)T

Check out the Punch & Judy College of Professor's website at www.punchandjudy.org These people and their colleagues ARE the living Punch and Judy tradition and if they see a link between their tradition and a genre typified by The Simpsons then so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.80.221 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any Simpsons reference at all on that site, was that your point?70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)T

You missed it. Was that your point? Here's the cut and paste from their FAQs - or you can look it up.  

Is the Punch and Judy Show very violent and non-pc?

Punch and Judy are to domestic violence what Tom and Jerry are to animal cruelty and the Keystone Cops are to police brutality. That stick Mr. Punch wields is the very slapstick that gave its name to the whole genre of broad physical comedy. You need to have a particularly puritanical view of humour if you wish to find slapstick comedy unacceptable on ground of Political Correctness. Those who attack the Punch & Judy Show for allegedly promoting domestic violence are trivialising the very real issue they are supporting. It is on a par with alcohol abuse campaigners targetting wine gums or anti-road rage campaigners seeking a ban on clown cars. The Punch and Judy Show is a folk drama still capable of reducing young - and not so young - audiences to paroxysms of helpless laughter by its topsy-turvey look at normal behaviour. There's a great deal of moral instruction contained within deceptively simple folk tales and traditional stories - and if you take away Mr. Punch's slapstick he won't be able to defeat the Devil (which, after all, is the traditional ending to the show). Do-gooders may try to censor works of art they think don't follow their own moral code - and the Punch & Judy Show is as much a work of art as any in the field of folk art - but society wisely rejects these attempts unless strong evidence is produced that they are indeed harmful. Mr. Punch is also mindful that Political Correctness tends to get a much worse press than he does and believes that attacks on his role as a little wooden Lord of Misrule only strengthens this viewpoint. There are those- too - who believe that Harry Potter leads to Black Magic and that Trick or Treating leads to Satanism. It is only a fundamentalist viewpoint such as this which can equate Punch and Judy with being ambassadors of violence. Profs see Punch & Judy in the same overall tradition as The Simpsons - an arena of surreal animated comedy in which in which a bizarre family is used as vehicle for grotesque visual comedy and a sideways look at contemporary society. For a detailed discussion document by a leading Punch 'Prof' on the topic of Punch & Political Correctness take a look at Clive Chandler's contribution to the Slapstick Symposium Papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.80.221 (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Children watching Punch and Judy seem to have a dim awareness that it is something other than what it appears to be; symbolic and timeless.I have seen explanations (but poorly substantiated) that the origins lie in medieval mystery play symbolism. Punch's hump representing the suffering of a spirit born to earthlife; his cudgel a 'magic wand' (reason)that conquers all life's problems, till he achieves perfection. In these interpretations, Punch - a a kind of Faust figure - "slays the mind, the great slayer of the real". Toby, his dog, represents animal passions, wife and family attachment to a selfish circle, and so on. Many slain characters are nowadays omitted; the professor (pedantry), the doctor (physical disease), the black man (racial intolerance), blind man (bigotry), lawyer (man-made justice), etc. But Jack Ketch, the hangman, remains. Punch finally achieves immortality by conquering death. The lack of source material is balanced by the coincidence of choice of traditional characters; the verdict is open. If this theory is true, the whole point of the allegory is destroyed if Punch is made P.C. 222.153.68.218 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The classic historians of Punch (notably Speaight and Leach)touch on the fringes of these possibilities but whilst these things might conjecturally lie in Punch's possible ancestry (in about the same place that Arthurian legend and symbolism resides in English folk-lore and history) they certainly had no overt place in the Victorian seaside entertainment of the 19th C or the childrens party fare of the 20th. Punch and Judy remains a living tradition that keeps abreast of contemporary society, otherwise it would be as distant and irrelevant to a modern popular audience as Mystery Plays themselves. It evades definitve meaning and presents its ambiguous possibilities clothed in the language and attitudes of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.213.143 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Amend Line

I think I've discovered what it is that's wrong with the line about why children enjoy Punch. The violence is a part of it, but it's as funny as it is because it's puppet violence. It's a puppet with a funny voice beating other puppets with a stick. I think we all agree most (?) children wouldn't find an actual man beating his wife to death funny. However, puppet-on-puppet violence-- that's humorous. There are other elements, of course, but would a "live-action" Punch and Judy be nearly so funny? I think the sentence should be changed to something along the lines of "this is greatly enjoyed by small children, possibly because of the puppet-on-puppet violence." Of course, the following sentence would have to altered as well, to flow properly.

I know some of you won't like this change, but if we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, can we really ignore what may be a large part of the humor in the interests of humorous prose? Besides, the article is currently lacking the term "puppet-on-puppet violence."The Luizer (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, methinks "puppet-on-puppet violence" is a term not likely to catch on anywhere, least of all in an encyclopedia! :) However the general point is a good one--discomfort wrought against others is fundamental to humour, eg, as long as they, not I slip on the banana skin. The aggro and discomfort dished out by Punch is masked by his puppet persona and comic costume, but it is very much human aggro, and even quite young children know how Punch is 'brought to life' and can realise the correspondence between their own felt passions and those acted out with puppets and dolls. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As Mel Brooks once said: "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." (See also The Three Stooges, or, really, slapstick in general.) Besides, the humor of the prose has – again – long since been mangled away.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids find Punch funny because Punch brings a child's logic to adult problems. Adults tie themselves in knots over this because they bring adult logic to a child's assumed problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walayebe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, people - domestic violence is not funny and that's all there is to it. doublesigh 00:57 (GMT+1), 25th Feb 2011

Niblo's Garden

The first ever venue to feature Punch and Judy in New York was claimed to be Niblo's Garden in 1860 during 'The Santa Claus Festival' on 27th. December. The New-York Daily Tribune ( not New York Tribune ) advertised the event on 25th. December, 1860, fifth column - and can be viewed here: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1860-12-25/ed-1/seq-1/ . It's rather interesting that in the same festival advertisement it would also claim the first American appearance of Aunt Sally . In closing my contribution - I wonder what avid fans of Punch and Judy will think of the 'Characters in the Comedy' listed in the advert ? I had to laugh. Isn't Punch and Judy just great! MZionC (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image for History Section ?

Pietro Longhi: The Charlatan, 1757

Found Punch lurking in the background of a painting from 1757 ! We could add this image to the 'History' section ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

List of characters

The list of characters claims the beadle is only used in historical reenactments, and yet does not consider the same for the Hangman (also a historical character in UK these days). Exactly where does one draw the line at a show with historical characters and a historical reenactment? I have seen the beadle used alongside contemporary figures. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Punch was never exclusively at the seaside

The history section concludes with "Modern British performances of Punch and Judy are no longer exclusively the traditional seaside children's entertainments they had become. They can now be seen at carnivals, festivals, birthday parties, and other celebratory occasions."

However, this is not exactly correct because Punch has never been exclusively a seaside entertainment. The first recorded Punch show (albeit a Pulcinella show)was in 17th Century London at Covent garden. Henry Mayhew's book on London's Poor and Labour, has an interview with a Punch performer who works in the cities, markets and fairs. he also states that he plays children's parties. This was circa 1840. Punch only mkoved to the seaside when the tourists did, but he was always around for children's shows, carnivals etc. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC))