The two authors previously mentioned often refer to this book, which they consider as the reference on Richard's reign. John Gillingham argues that Richard's short reign is a good example of kingship operating at full power. Indeed, according to the author, Richard lived up to his contemporaries ideals of kingship, but also to more modern criteria as the management of a territory as huge as the Angevin empire and the ability to maintain a good public image. The author also tries to defend Richard's military abilities, which have been wrongly underestimated according to him. I do not completely agree with his view and sometime find his view quite biased. For instance, Gillingham admits that “an important part of kingship was the ruler's management …show more content…
Once again, the author is clearly in favor of Richard, who he describes as a highly competent ruler, effective in administrative, diplomatic, political and military's business. I still partly disagree with him, especially on the diplomatic, since he refused to marry King Philip's sister, Alice, and thus provoked an inevitable conflict with the French king. This books is, nonetheless, very valuable for my …show more content…
Yvan Lepage suggests that he might have been the nickname of Jehan Ier, lord of Blondel from 1180 to his death between 1197 and 1200. What really matters is that a tale was written about this Blondel de Nesles and Richard's friendship, the Conte de Blondel. It takes place, once again, during Richard's captivity and relates how his friend Blondel tries to rescue him by searching for him in Austria and then inform the barons and friends of the king about his location. There is almost no evidence about this friendship, but this tale takes part in building Richard's legend. Richard is indeed portrayed as an accomplished knight, a prestigious Crusader and also a generous protector of arts and
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.
Here it sounds like he is talking about how cruel Richard is because he has destroyed good people, Namely; Anthony, Richard Grey, and Thomas Vaughan. Each were considered loyal to the children and would never have come to their untimely demise if Richard had never gained the Crown. So, how could anyone consider themselves safe under his
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.
Richard speaks about how people see him as a curse to the land and how he is unfit to be there. He does not like that and to prove everybody wrong, he will rise up to be king, no matter what he has to do. He even stated in his opening soliloquy that he will, “set my brother Clarence and the King, / In deadly hate the one against the other.” (I.i. 35-36). He can’t live his whole life being told he is a villian just because of his deformity.
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.
Shakespeare’s King Richard III examines the nature of villainy. Richard announces himself as a villain in the opening soliloquy, when he declares his intention to be evil “I am determined to prove a villain” due to his “unfished…deformed…rudely stamped nature”. This hyperbolic description of Richards’ deformities exposes the audience to his inner thoughts, while also representing his ‘unnaturalness’ – an outward sign of his inner corruption. This reflects the Elizabethan context in which the play was written. Queen Elizabeth I is the granddaughter of the play’s Richmond, whose supporters lent the Tudor dynasty legitimacy by claiming that not only was Richard a “monster of evil” (Stephen Greenblatt), but that Richmond’s reign as King Henry
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
The historical relationship between Richard II’s minority reign and his deposition was that he was never perceived as reaching maturity in the public’s eyes. Another issue was that his “minority reign” was never established nor was his majority reign. This issue ties together with his lack of maturity seen in the public’s eyes, but also set him up for failure due to this. Richard II’s minority reign is often classified from 1377-1380. When Richard ascended the throne he was only ten years old and within three years he has believed that he was ready to rule.
A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.
Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he
* Shakespeare shows the journey in Richard III of Richard himself on his dark quest to becoming king by both using his literary skills and performance to attain what he wants, ultimately being power.
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’s political ambition is revealed through his strategic calculations based on the order of birth in his York family which puts him third away from the throne. Ahead of him is his elder brother, George Clarence, a barrier which will have to eradicate. His brother, King Edward, is another political barrier, by simply being alive, in power and equally by being the father of the two young princes . Richard’s creates a political mistrust between his two
According to the article History and Tragedy in Richard II, written by Elliot, he writes “Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship (260)”. Richard’s downfall is not all his fault but as a king he should have understood the idea of what a great king needs to do to succeed in the life of royalty.