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,
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.
A deeper understanding of ambition and identity emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.
Richard II had many traits that exposed his immaturity. These traits ended up leading to his downfall, and the end of his reign. Firstly, he was unable to learn from his mistakes. After killing his uncle, John of Gaunt, he went on to steal Bolingbroke's share of the inheritance to fund his personal wants. He did not realize that taking a man's wealth was like taking his status. He never grew out of his ten-year-old state of mind, because he had everything handed to him on a silver platter from an early age.
his breast open to her to kill him with a blade but she drops it and
In Shakespeare’s history play Richard II, King Richard II’s relationship with God can be explored throughout the play as he gives up his crown. Richard II is easily seen as weak, making some think that he is not fit for the role of king. He does not listen to his advisors and takes money from the nobles. These actions lead Henry Bolingbroke to take the crown. Richard II does not put up much of a fight as he willingly hands the crown over to Bolingbroke, but he does prolong the process as he dramatically hands his crown and scepter over. Richard II even speaks out about his power that was given to him:
land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was
Richard III and the Stability of England Richard became King of England on July the sixth 1483 after the heir to the throne was proclaimed illegitimate. Whether this claim was true or not is questionable. During Richards reign, the stability of England has been debated. Was he the ruler England needed to end the 'Wars of the Roses' and bring stability back to the English people? Or did he cause England to be restless and unsettled?
As Machiavellians, Richard III and Henry V become actors, acting differently in certain situations to be able so that they will benefit, but in these situations Henry V has noble aims. Richard’s goal just seems to become the King(1.1.140-148). In a true Machiavellian fashion, he deceives several people like his brothers and the common people to try and advance his goal. When he is talking with Clarence his imprisoned brother he tells him, “your imprisonment shall not be long; I will deliver you.” He is
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
Shakespeare’s 16th century play, ‘Richard III’, is a literary interaction of characters and events which reflects the Elizabethan social, political and historical context, whilst simultaneously exploring several universal themes portrayed by Shakespeare. Through the interplay between the context, text and themes, ‘Richard III’s relevance is ongoing even to a 21st century audience. Shakespeare’s conformity to the Tudor myth consequently influences the characterisation of Richard as a deformed and villainous noble versus Richmond as a divine restorer, in order for his audience to quickly despite Richard and accept Richmond as a deserving king. This also allows for Shakespeare’s critique on what is considered human and inhuman. Shakespeare also
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
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.
In King Richard II, Shakespeare attempts to reflect on the real nature of England at the time of its publishing. The play is characterized by nobility, lordship, royal disputes and frequent wars. Notably, history evidences that such traits were associated with England in the 1500s. Particularly, Act 2 Scene 1 of the play has demonstrated a significant prophecy involving discomfort of an elderly member of the royal family towards the abuse of power demonstrated by King Richard II. John of Gaunt, the king’s uncle is displeased of the abusive practices of power that Richard has adopted and seeks to advise him before he succumbs to his old age. Indeed, John of Gaunt has utilized imagery and symbolism to demonstrate
Christopher Fletcher, in the essay, “Manhood and Politics in the reign of Richard II”, has discussed the various criticisms that the king faced. He reports that Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury had delivered a sermon at the king’s deposition, wherein he mocked upon the king’s behavior of being a ‘boy’ and of being impressed by sycophants, thus, being unfit to rule. A subsequent
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.