Who Is Richard Authentic Or Nthentic?

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.

King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).

A deeper understanding of ambition and identity emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.

Throughout my comparative study of texts and context, I have explored various connections shared between William Shakespeare’s ‘Richard the 3rd’ and Al Pacino’s ‘Looking for Richard’. As both of these items are based on the same character, King Richard the 3rd, they share a lot in common. The connection that I have chosen to concentrate on though is the idea of power, and how both texts explore this theme.

Richard speaks about how people see him as a curse to the land and how he is unfit to be there. He does not like that and to prove everybody wrong, he will rise up to be king, no matter what he has to do. He even stated in his opening soliloquy that he will, “set my brother Clarence and the King, / In deadly hate the one against the other.” (I.i. 35-36). He can’t live his whole life being told he is a villian just because of his deformity.

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.

The two authors previously mentioned often refer to this book, which they consider as the reference on Richard's reign. John Gillingham argues that Richard's short reign is a good example of kingship operating at full power. Indeed, according to the author, Richard lived up to his contemporaries ideals of kingship, but also to more modern criteria as the management of a territory as huge as the Angevin empire and the ability to maintain a good public image. The author also tries to defend Richard's military abilities, which have been wrongly underestimated according to him. I do not completely agree with his view and sometime find his view quite biased. For instance, Gillingham admits that “an important part of kingship was the ruler's management

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

Unfortunately, if Richard ignores the need to maintain the admiration of his citizens, he also overlooks his need for the support of the nobility.  The historical Richard angered Parliament with his “extravagant household expenses” (Hollister 314), which required extraordinary taxation of

In this passage from Shakespeare’s Richard III, Richard takes a step closer to his goal since he got rid of Hastings. He lists all the wrongs Edward has done and sends Buckingham to make the speech to the citizens, he also ordered Lovell to gather more allies, and he himself planned to get rid of Clarence’s children and to ensure that no one can contact the princes in the tower. Richard is shown here as a master of manipulation. Nothing would ever stop him from getting the power even when it means to betray his family and kingdom. Richard is betraying his family for the power, while Buckingham is shown to be loyal to Richard, this contrast and the bitterness of Richard are both shown by the diction of this passage.

The plays of William Shakespeare are generally easy to categorize, and the heroes of these plays are equally so. However, in the history play Richard II, Shakespeare’s king is more ambiguous than Hamlet or Romeo– there is no clear cut answer to whether Richard II is a tragic hero... or simply a tragedy. Historically, Richard II was crowned at a very young age, forced into the role of monarch, and thrust without hesitation into the murky world of political intrigue, which perhaps lends his character sympathy because he had no choice in his fate. However, despite his forced role in life, Richard II seems to rely on the concept of divine right to secure his throne, making no effort to sustain it once it

Richard III displays a England in the wake of constant revolutions and tumult which has left her in an unclear state. Without religion, ceremony, or even law left to govern the people only self-interested, and therefore apolitical, people thrive. As such Richard III comes to the throne with a thunderous speed and a wake of bodies in his trail. However, this was not always the character of England. Prior to the constant revolution and tumult was the rule of King John which, while not free of evil, was dedicated toward something outside of the self. Through an examination of each play one can see the requirements for a truly ‘political’ rule.

Moreover, only God could judge a legitimate king who has the divine right of a king which meant any attempts to disagree with an act of the king would show disagreement with God’s will and therefore would lead to higher punishments. This caused some kings to gain the power and right to do whatever they wish because of the divine rights they had whether their intentions and acts were good or unjust; which was the case in Shakespeare’s Richard II. Richard was a young king who was known to be immature and unjust. He believed that he was sent by God to the people of England and that, therefore, he was God’s gift to them. At the beginning, Richard murders his uncle Thomas of Woodstock in order to become the legitimate king. Since he was immature and unqualified for holding such position, he does unjust acts and surrounds himself by people who had no intention of saving the country and giving him feedback on how he rules. Instead, they only told him what would please him because the fate of England was not in their concern. When John of Gaunt –who was the Duke of Lancaster-, attempts to advise him, he refuses to put Gaunt’s advice into consideration (Bendix, 1980). He then continues to

Prior to Shakespeare’s ascendancy on the English stage, Bloom argues, there was no concept of the individual self, just types. These types persist in Shakespeare’s plays as residual stock characters displaying