History is not all that it is "cracked up to be." If a person believes himself/herself to be logical, it is easy to assume that researchers of history and authors of historical works are ethical and do their best. This is not a conclusion that is borne out by the facts. The case of the written history of King Richard III of England is an outstanding example of the lack of adequate research and actual perfidy on the part of historians. Richard III reigned for a brief period in the late 15th century, 26 June 1483 to 22 August 1485. He was the last Yorkist king and the last of the Plantagenet kings. He traced his ancestry to William the Conquerer. He was also the last English king to die in battle. He was succeeded on the throne by Henry the VII, the first of the Tudor line who ruled England for the next 118 years. With the death of Richard there were, for all intents and purposes, no Yorkist contenders for the throne. (There were a couple of incidents with pretenders, but these were quickly and violently put down.) As a result, Henry was able to concentrate on his duties as king. As monarchs and heads of state do right up to the present, Henry made sure he was presented in the best light possible, and that Richard was portrayed as a really bad guy. It seems as if this got a little out of hand, and there is no question that Henry and his successors did nothing to rein in the writers of the time. Chief among these authors was none other than William Shakespeare,
How has your study of the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard deepened your understanding of the context of and values within, each text?
-Anne mostly in the dark enhancing her incomprehension, camera turns away from her or shows only as body parts to frame Richard’s body
Late 14th century English king Richard II lost all of his power towards the end of his reign as a result of his exploded sense of self-importance and godly association, which led to fatal opposition from multiple prominent aristocrats and eventually England as a whole. This gradual growth of opposition can be seen in the persecution of Richard’s most favored advisors; the aftermath of fear and apprehension that followed Richard’s execution of the Lord’s appellant in 1397; and his swift and universally encouraged abdication by Henry Bolingbroke, future Henry IV.
Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences
Richard II was one of Shakespeare's political works depicting the rise and fall of King Richard II. Richard became king of England as a boy at 10 years of age, although his advisors made most of the political decisions of the kingdom until he matured. During this maturation period, Richard was more interested in learning about aesthetic things in life rather than things more responsible to the monarch. He had very little experience and talent in the areas of military tactics and his decisions relating to the monarch seemed arbitrary.
In Shakespeare’s history play Richard II, King Richard II’s relationship with God can be explored throughout the play as he gives up his crown. Richard II is easily seen as weak, making some think that he is not fit for the role of king. He does not listen to his advisors and takes money from the nobles. These actions lead Henry Bolingbroke to take the crown. Richard II does not put up much of a fight as he willingly hands the crown over to Bolingbroke, but he does prolong the process as he dramatically hands his crown and scepter over. Richard II even speaks out about his power that was given to him:
The texts King Richard III and Looking for Richard both accept the centrality of power and the yearning for it, as a central plot driver and an assumed part of the human condition. However, each presents a different perspective as to the nature of power; its origins and morality.
There is huge debate from both supporters and haters. The Richard III society claims that the facts we do know don’t support Shakespeare’s story. Recent evidence of two unidentifiable skeletons in the tower of London exists but isn’t conclusive. Richard still had the same possible motive as the play,the princes were in the way of the throne (Hicks, 362). If he isn’t guilty of this crime it could change the way he is viewed. The uncertainty leaves room for us to turn to the one source that is definitive, Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare used this uncertainty to gain our attention and amplify our accusations against Richard. Murdering relatives may have not been so appalling in its day ( University of Leicester, Web) but as time passes we continue to recoil and speculate, but it’s possible we will never know the
land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was
Richard was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and he was given the duchy of Aquitaine, his mother’s inheritance, at the age of 11 and was enthroned as duke at Poitiers in 1172. Richard possessed precocious political and military ability, he won fame for his knightly prowess, and quickly learned how to control the
whole career up to 1979” (Johnston 58). Richard III, then, was not intended to merely
He was born in Bordeaux France on January 6, 1367. He was the son of Edward the Black Prince and the grandson of King Edward III. Richard succeeded to his grandfather's throne on June 22, 1377, at the young age of ten. Due to his young age the government continued to be run by nobles of the kingdom, in the same fashion it had been in the last years of his grandfather's reign. These nobles were dominated by his Uncle John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
Throughout all great works of literature, the authors try to include a theme or center point to base their writing on. Within the plot there can be found many similar references and coinciding points to be discovered among the lines the author writes. Richard III is a play written by the great playwright, poet, and storyteller, William Shakespeare. He was a man who wrote many popular stories known today as some of the greatest works of literary art ever read. He lived throughout the late 16th century into the early 17th century, a time where he produced many plays that were appreciated by the masses and even some royalty. Richard III, one of his popular works, is rife with political criticisms while simultaneously veiled by comedic coverage full of metaphoric insults.
A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.
Richard II is not your average king. He is useless with his power and does not know how to use it. He is