Richard Iii

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 is not eye-catching due to physical deformity which he vividly describes as the cause of his misfit, and therefore acquires himself the status of a victim. No one pays attention to him because others neither find him handsome nor sexually appealing. But he magnetizes the audience, makes them complicit of his own deeds and dares it to look away.

According to the article History and Tragedy in Richard II, written by Elliot, he writes “Richard is a failure as a king not because he is immoral, nor because he is too sensitive and refined for the job, but because he misunderstands the nature of kingship (260)”. Richard’s downfall is not all his fault but as a king he should have understood the idea of what a great king needs to do to succeed in the life of royalty.

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.

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.

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.

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

There is huge debate from both supporters and haters. The Richard III society claims that the facts we do know don’t support Shakespeare’s story. Recent evidence of two unidentifiable skeletons in the tower of London exists but isn’t conclusive. Richard still had the same possible motive as the play,the princes were in the way of the throne (Hicks, 362). If he isn’t guilty of this crime it could change the way he is viewed. The uncertainty leaves room for us to turn to the one source that is definitive, Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare used this uncertainty to gain our attention and amplify our accusations against Richard. Murdering relatives may have not been so appalling in its day ( University of Leicester, Web) but as time passes we continue to recoil and speculate, but it’s possible we will never know the

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.

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.

Late 14th century English king Richard II lost all of his power towards the end of his reign as a result of his exploded sense of self-importance and godly association, which led to fatal opposition from multiple prominent aristocrats and eventually England as a whole. This gradual growth of opposition can be seen in the persecution of Richard’s most favored advisors; the aftermath of fear and apprehension that followed Richard’s execution of the Lord’s appellant in 1397; and his swift and universally encouraged abdication by Henry Bolingbroke, future Henry IV.

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

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.

Although Richard’s physical deformities are meant to represent his moral short-comings, it would seem the contorted figure of the villain represents the warping of historical facts by Sir Thomas More. As it turns out, according to Susan E. Leas, Richard was not an evil villain and Henry VII was not a “pure and holy deliverer” (Leas 1216). Leas asserts that after the victory of the Tudors, Sir Thomas More wrote the biography, and he wrote a biased version of events that Shakespeare found interesting enough to portray on stage. The problem with Shakespeare rendering More’s version of events on stage is that audiences both past and present see Shakespeare’s play as fact instead of fiction. Susan Leas supports this belief

Once again, the author is clearly in favor of Richard, who he describes as a highly competent ruler, effective in administrative, diplomatic, political and military's business. I still partly disagree with him, especially on the diplomatic, since he refused to marry King Philip's sister, Alice, and thus provoked an inevitable conflict with the French king. This books is, nonetheless, very valuable for my