The Leadership Characterities Of King Richard II

However, an argument contradicting this idea lies in the persona of Richard, Duke of York, who was the King’s closest adult male relative and the most famous and influential of the great magnates in 1450. Also before 1453 York was heir presumptive. He was descended from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York and fourth son of Edward III on his father’s side. On his mother’s side he was descended from Lionel of Clarence, Edward’s second son. York’s close blood relationship to the king could admit him to the throne. Not only did he claim the descent from King Edward III, but also claimed to the throne. The Battle of St. Albans is the straightforward proof of it. He evidently felt that he had a sense of duty and a right to play a fundamental role in government. Richard was an obvious threat to Henry’s kingship: unlike the last one he was a competent politician, a distinct warrior and a father of healthy sons. In other words, his power of personality harmonized his goal, which by 1450s, had come to embrace the crown of England.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

While reading Shakespeare's’ Richard II, one may wonder who ought to rule England: Richard II or Henry Bolingbroke. The person who ought to rule England is Henry Bolingbroke. This essay will explain the role of a king, objections to Henry’s rule, and why Henry ought to rule. To decide who ought to rule England one must understand the role of a king.

King Richard the second, is portrayed by Shakespeare wanting everyone to believe that God appointed him to be King and that he is to be accountable to God. He believed that no man comes even close to being God’s equal and that he does not need to heed the work of any

King Richard II had a skewed view of his roles. He was unable to successfully balance his role as king with his role of a man. One cannot rule a kingdom properly without knowing both of these roles (Moseley, 2009). He had a public persona that led him to believe, falsely, that he was immortal; privately, he was fallible and immortal. King Richard II did not pay attention to the things happening around him (Attend, 2017). He felt he was only responsible to God. This caused him to feel more resentment towards people such as Bolingbroke because he felt Bolingbroke should not have had a say. Between King Richard’s unpredictable temperament and his complicated psychological state, his confusion about his roles because too much to overcome (Forker,

Wardarius, I do agree with you that King Richard II believes that God anointed him during his kingship. He also believed that God was standing by him and as King and he can do anything that he wants because of his royal status. King Richards Crown was handed down through the death of his father, so he was not elected by the people. I also believe that during Richard’s rule he did not have compassion for the people who turn on him during his rule. King Richard II was a confident but arrogant king who craved to be in control of every

Richard III is literarily known as a historic play. This play portrays historical events, such as when the play opens, Edward IV has become re-crowned. This play represents 14 years of events which is condensed into about 14 days. There are ultimately elements of tragedy and comedy throughout this play and many of which these elements seem unusual to this documented event in history.

At the beginning of the play, John of Gaunt was an advocate for anything that Richard II did; however, towards the end of the play a transition has occurred and Gaunt starts to view Richard II in a different manner. Bolingbroke has returned and laid his stake on the English crown, causing Gaunt and some of the other

Let us begin with Richard II and Richard’s extra-legal actions in act 1. As we shall see, though Richard here seizes the exception and establishes himself as sovereign over English law, his actions create a dangerous precedent that will eventually prove the king’s undoing. The play famously begins with King Richard mediating an argument between Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray. As Katherine Eisaman Maus explains, the two “are fighting about the murder of Thomas of Woodstock;” though “Bolingbroke knows that Richard secretly ordered Woodstock’s death,” he nevertheless “cannot say so, [and must] pic[k] Richard’s agent Mowbray for his target” (“Introduction to Richard II,” 973). Richard, cognisant of his own guilt in Woodstock’s death, cannot allow the matter to proceed legally, and defers judgement in favour of a trial by combat—an already antiquated means of determining whose cause was right that acts under the presumption that God will favour the just cause and allow the innocent man to win (973). Richard, however, senses that Mowbray’s loss would “fright fair peace / And make us wade even in our kindred’s blood”—that is, ignite civil war—and so of necessity asserts his own authority over that of his own laws: he diffuses the situation by ‘mercifully’ banishing the combatants from the realm and thereby preventing further crisis (1.3.131-132). In so doing he rises to Schmitt’s hypothesised role of

Richard II was written by William Shakespeare in 1595 and was performed as a play, which is a young king by the name of Richard II (Hacht, 2007). King Richard II, ruler of England, but has not done so well as King, which at the end, his crown will be taken away and given to his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke due to him abusing his power and not taking advice very well from his advisers, family, or his close friends. Henry’s father, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was is also King Richard II’s uncle, before dying, speaks about his nephew leadership and describes England in a way of a garden, that is not been well taken care of and is dying due to the poor leadership of King Richard II. John of Gaunt, a man that believes God alone is more powerful than any King is, shows his loyalty to his country right before his death.