King Henry The Second 's Leadership Failures

Their superior position towards the king and his patronage created an opposition – “evil councillors”, whose aim was to remove the favourites. All the previous points together with the king’s failure to exterminate disorder, chaos, corruption and misgovernment in the country degraded the Crown’s reputation and showed Henry’s shortcomings resulting in the outbreak of the Civil War.

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.

Henry IV Part 1 deals heavily with the question of Henry IV’s legitimacy. Henry was a usurper king who deposed

These traits that Richard displayed were not befitting to a king and a man who was suppose to lead. Rather than look out for the

The government changing against their will and not protecting their rights. 2. 1. Because he thought as king he could do whatever he wanted and didn't accept wise councel. 3.

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.

Richard III, by William Shakespeare, is a play based on the amount of power and decisiveness needed to become the king of England. The main character Richard of Gloucester is the brother of the current king. The fact that Richard is evil for no apparent reason troubles readers. Yet overtime, the audience begins to warm up to Richard in part because of his skill with words. Richard's obvious skill of language allows him to successfully manipulate nearly every character in the play. This skill enables him to woo Lady Anne, have Clarence thrown in prison, blame the king for Clarence's death, and achieve Hastings's execution, all without any harm to himself. Although Richard's use of words permits him to manipulate and control those

How can one separate a mere normal man from a king? And which is more important between men with a passion from a man with a selfish desire? King Louis XVI was an example of a king unfit to rule. We will discuss King Louis’s early life, his reign as king, and the role he played in the French revolution.

Unlike Hal, King Henry’s role consist of three qualities that radiate kingship, the traits being composed, assertive and commanding. Despite these traits being essential to kingship, they ultimately lead to the court turning against King Henry and planning a rebellion against him. When discussing news of war and casualties in his throne room, Henry remains composed and finds the positive points in the situation rather the

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

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.

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a historical play that focuses on one of his most famous and complex villainous characters. Richard III or The Duke of Gloucester, who eventually becomes king, is ambitious, bitter, ugly and deformed. He manipulates and murders his way to the throne and sets the tone for the whole play with his very first speech, which is the opening of the play.

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.