John Gillingham's View Of Kingship

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’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

A deeper understanding of ambition and identity emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.

* 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.

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 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.

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.