Richard III Deformities

According to the article, titled "After digging up old bones, Britain argues: was King Richard III a villain?" written by the Washing Post, the central idea of this article is about King Richard III's life and whether or not he is a villain. For example, the author states "Before he was king, Richard III was a loyal supporter of his brother, Edward IV. Upon Edward's death, however, Richard usurped the crown from his brother's 12-year-old son, Edward V" (Washington Post, "After digging up old bones, Britain argues: was King Richard III a villain?", paragraph 5). This statement shows us a snippet of King Richard III's life and it also shows us how he was as a person before he became king. However it does not show the villainous acts he is accused

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

The reign of Richard III is something of a paradox. His rule was brief and he lost his crown to a usurper, allowing the House of York to die with him. Yet few English kings have been the subject of such continuous debate, and none have spawned such fervent denigration, or such enthusiastic support. Much of the debate fuelling pro- and anti-Richardians has been whether or not Richard had his two young nephews, Edward V and Richard of York, murdered. Unfortunately to date it has been a debate mired in speculation. Writes V. B. Lamb: 'No conclusive proof has ever come to light which could provide a solution that did not rest solely in speculation. The possibilities are endless, but all remain at

Even if he did all of the horrible deeds in the play, his heart wasn’t 100% evil. Evidence to support that is the article “Adapted from the Brief Biography and Introduction to Richard's Reputation.” it asserts,”“King Richard worked to reform the legal system of England, supported the poor of England and he founded the College of Arms, to train knights. ”(Moorhen). As I said earlier if he was a true “evil” person then why did Richard support the poor of England and found a College of Arms?

The Contribution of the Supernatural to Richard III During the Renaissance period people were very superstitious and England on a whole was an extremely religious country; people believed in both God and the Devil and Heaven and Hell. They also believed in prophecies, supernatural and curses. A modern audience would have reacted very differently to the play than a Shakespearean audience. The events contained within Richard III must have seemed very real to a Shakespearean audience as it depicts the historical events of the rise and fall of Richard III. For a Shakespearean audience these events happened only a century earlier.

	Much debate and controversy surround the rise and fall of Richard the Third. It is hard to ignore such subjects due to the bonds and hidden reasons that many of the authors of the middle ages had towards Richard. In keeping an objective approach towards Richard III, the study of his rise and fall will be taken in the perspective of his royal acts and administration of England. Public sentiment over such things as the scandal surrounding the princes did have an effect over the rule of Richard, but there are many other underlying aspects that could have extended Richards rule, and changed the way history looks back on him.

Shakespeare’s Richard III was written in approximately 1592. The play portrays the way Richard obtained the thrown and how his reign quickly came to an end after only two years. He illustrates the War of Roses and the division between the Lancaster and York houses, which eventually came to a close when the first Tudor king came to power. This play was published during the Elizabethan Era, which is the time period distinguished by Elizabeth I’s supremacy over England. The era is characterized by literature, drama, and Renaissance ideology. While Elizabeth I enjoyed theater and drama, she was protective over the monarchy’s image and opposed anything that threatened its social order. Queen Elizabeth

Richard was king from 1483-1485, came to the throne after his brother had died and Richard thought it right for the princes (his nephews) to be put into the tower of London for their own protection and then died later on. Throughout the play are many death and assassinations, many who were ordered by Richard to do so, although Richard never killed anyone himself. William Shakespeare wrote in his play that Richard killed the princes in the tower, but is everything that Shakespeare said true? Either way when the princes died there was a huge rebellion broke out in the South and the West.

Shakespeare’s plays that deal with historical accounts of kings often show the flaws that the reigning king had. From King John to Henry VIII, Shakespeare paints an image of a king whose flaws lead to their eventual downfall. Shakespeare’s Richard II is no different, in that context, from his other historical plays. He highlights the flaws of the reigning king while he highlights the virtues of an individual that is below the king in terms of status. By highlighting the flaws of the king, Shakespeare aims to dissolve the idea of a perfect king.

The more popular view of Richard III is that of an evil monarch. Which, considering some of his actions, does make sense. Especially when you consider that “… for many generations his tyranny and monstrosity were indisputable” (Hicks). Regarding his nephews, the Princes, after claiming that they were bastards and therefore no longer in line

Not much is actually known about Shakespeare’s appearance, what we do know is based off of three different artistic depictions of Shakespeare the Chandos portrait, the Droeshout engraving, and the wall monument at the holy trinity church in Shakespeare’s home town. The Chandos portrait is the most widely known and is believed to be the only portrait done while he was alive. “It shows a balding but not unhandsome man of about forty who sports a trim beard” (Bryson, 2). He was sporting a very bohemian looking earring and dark clothing signifying that he has some sort of wealth.

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

Richard II was a play that was written by William Shakespeare in his earlier days (1398). This particular play is considered to be his 1st in his history of the tetralogy, which is a series of four games. In this particular piece of literature the author points out several different factors; however, the most relevant factors are in regards to kingship and the role of authority figures and how these characters intertwined within our perception of the way we operate as a community or in this case in England. My understanding of this play is that you have those within life that are all talk and those that are doers such as leaders. The literacy contributes to the present moments in history such as this past election of Donald Trump our new profound

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.