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.
My report is on Richard I, byname Richard the Lion-Hearted. He was born September 8, 1157 in Oxford, England. He died on April 6, 1199 in Chalus, England. His knightly manner and his prowess in the Third Crusade(1189-92) made him a popular king in his own time, as well as the hero of countless romantic legends. He has been viewed less kindly by more recent historians and scholars.
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
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
This is only one of a multitude of lies, each serving to further our opinion that, for Richard, appearance is to be valued over substance. On face, and in action, he truly seems to be "That excellent grand tyrant of the earth, That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls"7, Machiavelli's Prince.
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.
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,
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.
In this essay, I will identify, describe and explain causes as to why Richard III was known as a bad King. Many people think about him as a bad king but was he really? And if so what made him so badly recognised?
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’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.
He dominates the play in a way that no other Shakespearean character has ever dominated. Richard is simply always addressing the audience. So all of the opinions are basically coming from him. With that being said, you can’t help but to recognize with him. This is what makes King Richard III identifiable as the protagonist as you are simply forced into having to recognizing with him in the play.
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
Prince Hal shows a great deal of insight in this revelation; his words show that he realizes he has a twofold boundary to overcome: first, he is seen as overly juvenile and flighty by most of his father’s men; second, and more importantly, Hal knows that he has no claim to the divine right to rule, as he is not of Richard II’s bloodline. It seems, then, that Hal knows full well “the way that men respond to the image of royalty, and [is] no less instinctive a politician than his father,” and is in fact “the creator as well as the creature of political mythology, the author as well as the hero of his legend” (Ornstein, 137). By rising phoenix-like out of the ashes, Hal knows that he will make a more compelling impression on England than if he had been conventionally “princely” all his life, and plays this dramatic advantage to