King Richard II And Henry V

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.

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

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

Richard I reigned over England during the Middle Ages from 1189 to 1199 with great bravery and immense courage. Richard was born as the third legitimate son of King Henry II of England and never assumed that he would ever ascend to become the king. After leading his country in the Third Crusade, he gained the nicknames “the lionhearted” and “the absent king.” Through many heroic deeds while away at war, he deserved the nickname of “The Lionhearted” the most.

The language of Shakespeare connects both King Richard III & Looking for Richard, enriching the significance of each & enabling both to provide continuous meaning for a range of contexts. The apparently outdated language of Shakespeare is given new life for the modern context, enabling audiences to better understand the original text & thus elevating the play. The film Looking for Richard, through rehearsals of actors, cuts between scholars and ‘random’ people on the street,

It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

Religiously, rulers justified their actions by persuading the public that they were working in the name of God. Many english rulers used the excuse of divine right to justify their actions. The rulers announcement of their power given to them by God, made their actions justified. This was because, people would not stand up against any harsh actions in risk of going to hell. Due to the importance of religion in this time allowed rulers to use religion to their advantage when justifying their power.

Texts are shaped by their compositional context and thus offer new insights about the composer’s era. However, as there are ongoing concerns of humanity, key ideologies resonate over time and are affirmed between texts as shown in William Shakespeare’s play ‘King Richard III’ (1591) and Al Pacino’s docudrama ‘Looking For Richard’ (1996). King Richard III examines the irrational behaviours and moral ramifications of a power lust Richard to explore ideas of the relentless pursuit of power, betrayal and deceit, reflective of the theocentric context of the Elizabethan society. Centuries later, Looking For Richard explores Pacino’s journey to reshape a Shakespearean text that is representative of the changing contextual norms and values of a contemporary American audience who are confused and sceptical about the relevance of Shakespeare’s plays. Both texts provide an image of Richard’s deceit reflective of their distinctive contexts. However, despite the disparity of time, both texts display how key ideas such as deceit, endure and resonate over time.

     According to Jacques-Benigne Bousset, a preacher and tutor to Louis the fourteenth’s son, there were four characteristics to royal authority. The first of being, royal authority is sacred. Second, royal authority is paternal. Third, it is absolute. Fourth, All power comes from God. (Text 596) To summarize Bousset he believes that, like God, a king is a father figure. To be idolized, respected and loved. So if God is the father of earth then his sons are the fathers of people, or kings. This makes a king both divine and undisputable, as a descendant of God. “Royal authority is absolute…The prince need account to no one for what he ordains…without this absolute authority, he can do no good nor suppress evil…” (Text 596).

The King began to gain power then eventually he had ultimate power. People began calling Kings, Gods so they became the highest people known to mankind. “Kings are justly called Gods” (Source 4, James I. King of England). Gods were the highest people in the world but eventually Kings started to get the name of a God. Kings started doing whatever they wanted and making new pointless rules because of their new title. Which made the people upset because they were more restricted with more rules. As a result, the Kings were called Gods as an effect of absolutism which gave them more power and made the people

King Henry VIII of England is the most infamous and notorious of all the Monarchs of England. He was a vile and heartless man who beheaded over 72,000 people in his 38 year reign and called for public celebration when his first wife, Catherine of Aragorn died on the 7th of January,1536.

King James I, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in the idea of Absolute government. They believed that King's were "God's Lieutenant's" and they were in power simply because God sent them there. These men believed in divine power upon earth, and that "God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure…and the like power have Kings…" as quoted from doc. 2 of King James I. Being how King James I was a King, it is a conventional belief that Kings had divine rights. In one of Machiavelli's works "The Prince" Machiavelli writes "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared."(Doc.1) Consequently Machiavelli believes in having a fear in your ruler, because if you fear your ruler, you will not hesitate to obey him, for you are afraid of the punishment. Where as, if you love your ruler, you are more lenient to challenge your ruler's authority.

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.

From leading men into battle, making critical decisions, and maintaining a public image, a king’s responsibility I intently vast. Their choices and beliefs reign superior to all others and the public has no say in how they make these choices. Yet, kings all around the world do their best to please their people and are “taught” to be a good leader. Over the course of time between the writings of Beowulf, and Henry IV the way a king was viewed in their society, how he was to use his power, and how their morals reformed into the different principles that still, to this day, plays part in leadership. This paper will navigate the dialogue and descriptions the

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