Richard III Grave

The Tollund man’s body was discovered by Viggo and Emil Hojgaard, and Viggo’s wife, Grethe Hojgaard. In 1950 the family were cutting peat to use for fuel. As the family worked, they suddenly saw a face in about 2 metres of peat. They immidiatly called the police at Silkeborg.

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.

Adam of Usk, a Welsh canonist, chronicler, and witness of Bolingbroke’s march remarks that: “King Richard… sent forward the lord [Thomas] Despencer to stir up the men of Glamorgan to his help; but they obeyed him not. Stunned by this news coming in from all sides, and acting on the advice of those who I think were traitors… he fled in panic at midnight with only a few followers…”. Defenseless, Richard’s rule was effectively at an end, and with ubiquitous encouragement from Parliament and the commonwealth, Henry of Bolingbroke held Richard captive until he unwillingly agreed to abdicate his crown. Richard spent the rest of his days in Pontefract castle and died from starvation. Adam of Usk summarizes the lasting deprecating reputation of King Richard II:

This image of Richard that is brought to the readers attention is somewhat exaggerated. Since this play was written during the rule of Queen Elizabeth I, who is from the house of Lancaster, Shakespeare had to make the play portray the York house as villainous. The exaggeration of Richard's true character seems to be more believable than most of the character's actions in the play. Richard is responsible for the following deaths: young prince Edward, Henry VI, Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, the two young princes, lady Anne, and Buckingham. After viewing this laundry list of corpses there are only two possible answers to the obvious question of how is all of this possible. Either Shakespeare created his own history of England for the play or Richard's skill of language is even better than what was first thought.

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

	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.

There is a large amount of medical evidence supporting this theory also. A computed axial tomography scan was done in 2005 showing that Tutankhamun died with an open wound fracture on his left leg. Within the bone, when the mummified body was examined, they found resin which was used by the Ancient Egyptians to preserve the body so the wound had to have been obtained around the time of his death otherwise the resin would not have found it’s way into the young King’s bone. In 2013 Ultimate Tut, a documentary dedicated to solving the mystery of the King Tut’s death, was released. With this new information was also released accordingly showing us that the severe trauma shown on Tutankhamun matches that of a person who has been run over by a chariot

whole career up to 1979” (Johnston 58). Richard III, then, was not intended to merely

Much like Julius Caesar and Macbeth, Shakespeare’s Richard the Second is full of prophecies. The most notable and multifaceted prophecy, of course, being that which predicts the downfall of the king. Shakespeare often uses natural disaster or strange things in nature to foreshadow a King’s death. In Macbeth, there was a terrible storm the night that Duncan was murdered, Julius Caesar similarly there was a storm the night the conspirators plot to murder Caesar. Richard the Second also includes omens in the natural world that precedes Richard’s death the trees are withering, the moon has turned red, and meteors fill the sky.

Norway was different. Directly after the funeral he left. He went home and locked himself in and started doing his work from home. He didn’t visit the grave for 6 months. How could he looked at the grave of someone he knew for over a thousand years?

William Shakespeare’s characterization of Britain’s historical monarch Richard III, formerly Duke of Gloucester, is one of the most controversial in literature. To this day there are arguments upholding Richard III’s villainy and ascertaining his murder of the Princes in the tower, just as there are those who believe that he has been falsely represented by Shakespeare’s play and fight avidly to clear his name of any and all crimes. Because of the uncertainty surrounding his true character, Richard III is an intriguing personality to put into modern culture, which is exactly what Ian McKellen does in his rendition of the infamous ruler. However, McKellen’s portrayal of Richard III preserves the basic

Richard III, born in England, to Richard, Duke of York; and Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, is often pinned as the culprit in the murder of his nephews. Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were the sons of King Edward IV, Richard III’s older brother. When King Edward IV died on April 9th, 1483, Edward V, roughly twelve years old at the time, remained the heir to the throne. King Edward IV had appointed Richard to govern England until Edward V came of age. Around June 1483, following a declaration by Bishop Stillington that Edward had been married to Eleanor, Lady Butler before Elizabeth Woodville and that therefore Edward V was an illegitimate heir, Richard III declared himself as king. Soon after, his nephews both disappeared, last seen

As we had seen, in the play of Richard the third how Richard is treated throughout the play either by alliances or foes we see the many reasons why that they seem to effect Richard. Either in his rule or treatment of others, the treatment from himself and the treatment he receives from other, and how he acts towards himself and others for his wants and needs. Throughout the play, Richard had always found ways to get rid of those in his way and manipulate due to not only power but for revenge. From the very begging in Richard’s speech he speaks about his deformities, mistreatment from his family and others, and his poor sufferings. In His speech in act 1 scene 1 he said (Shakespeare, William. Richard the Third. “Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, have no delight to pass away the time, unless to see my shadow in the sun and descant on mine own deformity.”) Here in this statement we see how Richard starts to plan his attack on those around him not only in the play we see this, also countless other things. Like in such stories like The Hungry Artist and The Old Man with Enormous Wings the reader is given a sort of feeling of sympathy for the man characters as they are often mistreated and jeered at, at the most part don’t really have a choice to be the way that they are (except for the story of The Hungry Artist, although it was a way of “living”), and how the characters find ways to

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.