Character Analysis Of Henry Bolingbroke

In addition to banishment, Henry was also unfairly taken of his families' wealth, land, and title, from which he was the rightful heir. Henry contrasted Richard in many ways, in that he was honest, and very practical. Furthermore, Henry was very reluctant to assume the role of future King, eventually accepting after urging and support from the other nobles.

Richard, the main character of the Shakespeare’s play, Richard III is portrayed as socially destructive and politically over-ambitious. His destructive potential is depicted by the way he relates with the other protagonists in the play and also by what he confesses as his intentions.

It is only during his deposition and his imprisonment that Richard shows his greatest strength as a dramatic figure. Although occasionally he seems to demonstrate self-pity, he also reveals himself to have an acute awareness of the ironies and absurdities in the structure of power of his kingdom. He still compels the court to reconsider his initial claim that the crown is divinely appointed: “Not all the water… can wash the balm of an anointed king (3.2.55)”. Although he keeps reminding those present of his God-given mandate to rule, he seems also to take pleasure in passing on the trails of kingship to his successor. As a King, He does have a God-given position of being the king. But as a king one should know the difference between moral values and ethics values. Just because Richard is King and is appointed by God doesn’t give him any rights to be an awful ruler. He can’t always fight a problem by saying that he is

Since Richard cannot do anything about his deformity and ugliness he turns his bitterness to ambition and lays the groundwork for his plan to betray King Edward IV. Richard tells the audience, “plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, to set my brother Clarence and the King in deadly hate against the other; and if King Edward be as true and just as I am subtle, false, and treacherous, this day should Clarence closely be mewed up, about a prophecy, which says that G OF Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be” (1.1.32-40). In these lines, Richard reveals his plan that he will turn Clarence and King Edward against each other so Edward will banish Clarence to the tower because he believes Clarence will be his murderer. Richard will do this through declaring a prophecy that this will be so. Richard explains that this will work because King Edward is as just as Richard is treacherous and Richard will use that against King Edward to cause his and Clarence’s demise. It is not known whether the character Richard would have revealed more about his plan this early in the play because he is interrupted by Clarence. Richard ends the speech with the lines, “dive thoughts down to my soul, here Clarence comes” (1.1.41), which basically means that he better keep

    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.

The 1998 movie, Bulworth, dives into the realm of the scandalous American political system. From income inequality, to corporate greed, Bulworth manages to put a comedic twist on a very serious set of topics that politicians and the American public face daily. The main character, Jay Billington Bulworth is a liberal democratic Senator from California who is running for reelection (Bulworth: 1998). He has recently accepted millions of dollars in financial campaign donations from large corporations in order to combat his younger, populist opponent. At the beginning of the movie, Bulworth is sitting in his office, re-watching an old commercial from a prior election campaign. He hasn't slept or eaten for days and is considering ending his life.

Richard III is seen as a monster and a horrible person, but why? What if people saw him differently or if his family treated him equally like others? Also nobody wants to love an ugly hunchback. This is how Richard is treated in the play. He despises everybody including God and all of is creations so he decides to conquer the land and become King of England.

Richard the Lionhearted was not do much of anything for the people of England or for England in general. When he became king of England he devoted his life to the Third Crusade which was started because Saladin, the leader of the Muslim armies, captured and took over Jerusalem. He did not care about the future of England, and used all the money he could to buy things for the Crusade. He was also competing with French, German, and English powers for the title of getting Jerusalem back. People think that Richard the Lionhearted plotted Conrad’s, the German who was trying to get Jerusalem,

Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.

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.

however it was not and he had to face him in battle. "My lord he doth

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:

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

Richard is truly a man fit for the medieval period, this being proved in the tournament he has Bolingbroke and Mowbray participate in. The scene starts with trumpets sounding and the king flourishing in; Bolingbroke and Mowbray are suited in armor. Richard begins the ceremony (for that's what it truly is) with formalities. "Marshal ask yonder knight in arms / Both who he is and why he cometh hither" (I.iii.28-29). Certainly this is redundant and reminiscent of modern-day courtroom behavior. But again there is a sense that Richard is resplendent in these royal formalities. He is the director and lead actor in his mind. Richard is creative, as not only his poetry demonstrates but also in his ability to bring to life his ceremonious ideals. "He enjoys playing king, delights in his caprious adjucation of the encounter between two peers...He knows that he is king by divine right...in a world permanently ordered by traditional loyalties..." (Cubeta 7).

A general finish of most pundits is that Richard II is a play about the affidavit of a "frail and feminine" ruler. That he was a feeble ruler, will be yielded. That he was a mediocre individual, won't. The understanding to Richard's character and inspiration is to see him as a man reliably acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held extraordinary love for show and function. This peculiarity positively drove him to settle on choices as lord that were poor, and in actuality a maladroit ruler. Notwithstanding this imperfection in character, Richard could be seen as a clever, wise individual, yet illsuited for his acquired occupation.