The Death Of Edward II

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

To what extent was Northumberland more successful than Somerset in ruling England during the reign of Edward VI?

Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.

The rebellions that occurred during the reign of Edward VI were mainly of a religious origin- Asses the validity of this view.

For instance, it states in the novel that Edward “lived in a state of constant aspiration” (fifteen) and that “getting there, wherever it was, wasn’t the important thing: it was the battle, and the battle after that, and the war was never ending.” (fifteen) It also states that he worked and he worked (fifteen), meaning he was working instead of being with William and Sandra. Due to his low self-esteem, he used almost all his time trying to prove himself as who he wants to be, rather than playing the correct role as a good father to William and a reliable husband towards Sandra. Edward inconsiderately does not want to give up on his legacy to his son because he wants to remain the great man he is. For example, Edward “expected more” (120) back when William was born. He expected “a muted brilliance, a glow, maybe even a halo of some kind.” (120) Since William is such an ordinary child compared to Edward, he believes that his son is not worth of inheriting his identity; hence explaining why William’s knowledge of Edward is limited to a mythical and unrealistic level.

In my personal opinion the memoir written by Edward Abbey, The First Morning gave the best description of his initial assessment of the Arches National Monument. His narrative gave many details on how he physically felt the night of his arrival along with his waking moments to watch the sun rise. His description of his views started off describing his journey in finding the house trailer which he would live in for the next six months. “The road, narrow and rocky, twisted sharply left and right, dipped in and out of ravines, climbing by degrees toward a summit which I would see only in the light of the coming day.” (p. 564) His descriptions were so detailed that as a reader it is easy to visualize and even obtain a chill in the air by reading

Richard then gloats over his success in a soliloquy stating how he has won her heart even though he is regarded by her as the devil with dissembling looks and he stabbed Edward her love just 3 months earlier. This highlights how he thinks of himself as the best as he brags about his misdeeds as though he is immortal.

As King John I grew up with his father as king, he was able to learn how to govern a country, and how he would lead the people when he later became king. As a Child, feud between family members was common. John often fought with his brother, and John’s mother was seen as his father’s prisoner (English Edward). Since there was conflict in John’s life as a child, conflict surfaced later on during his reign against other government officials and countries. Even though John was his father’s favorite son, he was not heir to his father’s throne and it took John many years to become king. John’s older brother Richard was the heir to the

In 1280, Ruler Edward "Longshanks" attacks and overcomes Scotland following the demise of Alexander III of Scotland, who left no beneficiary to the position of royalty. Youthful William Wallace witnesses Longshanks' unfairness, survives the passings of his dad and sibling, and is taken abroad on a journey all through Europe by his fatherly Uncle Argyle, where he is instructed. A long time later, Longshanks stipends his aristocrats land and benefits in Scotland, including Prima Nocte. In the interim, a developed Wallace comes back to Scotland and begins to look all starry eyed at his youth companion Murron MacClannough, and the two wed in mystery. Wallace salvages Murron from being assaulted by English warriors, yet as she wards off their second

Have you ever had to make an opportunity cost ? My protagonist , Edward , is in your shoes , however there's a catch . His decides his entire family's fate . This is his story . An innovative and intelligent augur , Edward is in pursuit of a Phd in computer science in technological advancement all around him. Despite his innovative imagination he's never been able to express his thoughts or feelings. His entire life he's been in pursuit of something he's never been able to get his hands on , money . Born to a disabled mother and a father he never knew , he grew up in poverty . Now that his mother is dying he has to somehow get his hands on it . Offered with a board role on Apple it's the most reasonable solution with heavy pay and security

land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was

Changes in political views are usually done under the pretense of social and political mayhem. Niccolo Macchiavelli wrote his book The Prince after having assisted in the creation of a republic in Florence at a time when several Italian states were fighting for control. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote his work The Leviathan under the English Civil War when it was clear that the king was not able to keep his people safe. These backdrops of political unrest helped mold both philosophers attitudes toward both the government and the people living under it. Machiavelli saw the stability of the state with utmost importance, using any technique available such as deception to keep it together. Hobbes on the other hand saw government as a solution to the brutish and dangerous state of nature that all men originally find themselves in, creating a system for people to opt in as long as they do not attempt to undermine the sovereign.

Henry the Fifth has been noted as England’s best King throughout history. He was loved among the common people and nobles alike for his fairness, his effectiveness on the throne, his justness, and his ability to relate to people of all classes. The kings that reigned before him, especially his father King Henry IV and King John, provide a striking contrast to Hal’s attitude on the throne. Kings of the past had not experienced the life of the common people, and chose to lead their lives in the realm of the castle. As we witnessed in I Henry IV, Hal’s father even went as far to discuss this approach to ruling at length with Hal. Henry IV believed that a king was best admired and supplicated if he was kept

In the preface of Lamentations, William Cecil describes Parr as "by birth made noble, by marriage most noble, by wisdom godly, by a mighty King, an excellent Queen; by a famous Henry, a renowned Katherine." It is true that it was during her time as queen and regent, she exercised the most power and influence. She collected upon debts owed to the crown, attacked price gouging, entertained foreign dignitaries when the King was physically unable to, promoted family members and reformers to important positions within the court, but most importantly laid the groundwork for her future influences by establishing relationships with the royal children. She provided Edward with love and affection that he was lacking from the fact that prior to Parr,

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.