Shakespeare displays betrayal throughout Henry IV and Richard II. Betrayal affects both kings but affects their reign differently. The Unabridged Dictionary defines betrayal as, "to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty...to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to" (n.d.). People handle betrayal in different ways, and this occurs with these two kings. King Henry IV was a stronger king than Richard II because he was capable of handling betrayal and was able to hold onto his reign until his death unlike Richard II who was dethroned by his friend. Betrayals of Richard II The first betrayal that appears in Richard II is within the first scene. The betrayal is between Mowbray and Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke is accusing …show more content…
At one point during the play, he refers to the men who join Bolingbroke and betray Richard II and England. He states, “Snakes in my heart blood warmed that sting my heart/three Judases, each one thrice worse than Judas” (Richard II, scene 3, act 2, line 131-132). He compares the overthrowing of his thrown to the betrayal and death of Jesus. In act iv, scene 1, he talks about how people said “all hail” to him as the people had when Jesus entered into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Matthew 21:9 says, “The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!” (NIV). Richard also compares himself to Jesus by saying that Jesus had only one betrayer in twelve of his followers, but he did not have one friend in …show more content…
Henry IV sent an order for Richard II to be killed at the end of the last play. The people of England saw this as a type of betrayal against the king and civil war had broken out. Henry IV’s son Hal is a wild and mischievous character. When Poins asks Hal where he has been he says, “With three or four loggerheads amongst three or fourscore hogsheads” (Henry IV part 1, act 2, scene 4). He hangs out with Falstaff and others in the bar and which is not pleasing to his father. King Henry IV saw this behavior as a betrayal to the throne and to the life of a prince. Mortimer who is Hotspur’s cousin betrays the king by marrying a Welsh nobleman’s daughter, which leads the king to not pay for his ransom. Henry IV says, “His brother-in-law, the foolish Mortimer/Who, on my soul, hath willfully betrayed/The lives of those that he did lead to fight…For I shall never hold that man my friend” (Henry IV part I, act 1, scene 3, lines 80-90). Hotspur is not happy with this so he, Northumberland, and Worcester decide that they need to overthrow Henry
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
Richard did not manage to recover from the usurpation of Edward and after allegedly murdering the two Princes in the tower his reputation had fallen greatly. He had lost a lot of respect from nobles and from the populus. Killing the Princes could be seen as one of the major factors of his downfall. It was common place in monarchical families to have brothers and sisters "put out of the picture", but even in these primitive times, the murder of innocent children was a taboo.
...e was also writing in Tudor England and seemed to have openly dislike Richard III. In other portions of his writing he describes Richard as an unattractive deformed man who was born with a full set of teeth. He writes that he had a “sour countenance , which seemed to savour of mischief, and utter evidently craft and deceit.”
...in themes similar to those found in the two Henry IV plays, such as usurpation, rebellion, and the issue of lineage of royal right. But Richard II and King Henry V are decidedly more serious in tone, and in comparing them to I Henry IV and II Henry IV, the argument can be made that it is these two latter plays which resound with greater realism with the broader spectrum of life which they present. Shakespeare carefully balances comedy and drama in I Henry IV and II Henry IV, and in doing so the bard gives us what are perhaps the most memorable characters in all of English literature.
Richard’s disdain for humane beliefs and customs (such as religion, marriage, and family) shows when he treats them as nothing more than empty forms – this further labels him as a demon of indiscipline and rebellion. He sees virtues as contrary to his power-thirsty nature and aim, which emphasizes his pathological shamelessness and lack of hremorse. With his charisma, he woos Lady Anne in order to disempower her, revealing his disregard towards the seriousnesss of murder and respect for women: “What though I killed her husband and her father?” (I.i.156). Richard shows his disrespect towards love and marriage as he becomes her husband “ not so much for love / [but] for another secret close intent” (I.i.159-160) to benefit himself. In Act IV, Richard “prays” with ...
Shakespeare chooses to display power and control in an abstract and twisted way in the character of Hal in Henry IV Part 1. Many of Shakespeare’s plays are about Kings and ruler ship, this was because he was fascinated by the ways people handled power, and the deceit, back-stabbing and planning it requires to get and to stay at the top. The way Hal gains control is twisted because he is doing wrong and causing trouble but gaining control over people at the same time, in the same way a rebel or criminal would, revealing a part of his character.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
From the outset of the play, it is obvious that Richard subscribes to the majority of the Machiavellian principles. Certainly, he is not ashamed or afraid to plot heinous murder, and he does so with an ever-present false front. "I do mistake my person all this while,"1 he muses, plotting Anne's death minutes after having won her hand. He will not even entertain the ideas in public, demanding they "Dive...down to [his] soul."2 He knows that he must be cunning and soulless to succeed in his tasks. Richard also knows it is essential to guard against the hatred of the populace, as Machiavelli warned.
Through characterization, Shakespeare explores moral conflict, and passage three is a prime example of Falstaff’s enduring moral disorder. By this stage in the play, Hal has ‘reformed’, moved away from his former mentor Falstaff and become a good and honourable prince. Hal’s remark to his father indicates a strong, independent mind, predicting that Douglas and Hotspur will not accept Henry’s offer because of their love for fighting. Henry’s reply, in turn, indicates a change in attitude towards his son, a newfound respect. Acknowledging Hal’s prediction, the king orders preparations to begin, and we see he has his own set of solid moral values: knowing that their ‘cause is just’ helps him to reconcile with his highly honourable conscience that there is indeed cause for war.
Throughout the play of Henry IV: Part 1, King Henry of London has begun preparing the kingdom for his son, Prince Hal, who will soon inherit the throne. Unfortunately, King Henry is apprehensive of his wild child, frightened that he won’t be able to transition from rowdy boy to respectable king. In this passage, Prince Hal is dramatically explaining his scheme, professing that he is capable of successfully inheriting the throne. Through this explanation, it is clear that he has avoided much of his inescapable responsibilities throughout his childhood. By looking at Shakespeare's use of contrasting point of views, we can see that Prince Hal wanted to deliberately victimize and justify his current facade, as well as create the image of the person
Edward V and his brother so that he could be next in line for the crown. But that is not true for Richard really didn’t do it.
Richard had weakened since he had become king and was no longer ruthless as he had no reason to be ruthless. He had got what he wanted and was pleased with himself. He thought he was invincible, and he was too confident, which cost him his life. If he had been more careful, he would have been aware of the danger that lied before him. But, he did use some similar techniques in both the scenes.
The worst feeling of pain anyone could feel is when you are betrayed by some who you though loved you. Betrayal is an act of disloyalty and it is violating someone's trust. In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, betrayal is a reoccurring action between many characters. This play shows the audience different types of betrayal that are imaginable, from a husband betraying his wife, a boyfriend betraying his girlfriend and a mother betraying the son and father. These actions of betrayal hurt the people that are most loved and destroys them where it most hurts in the end. Betrayal is one of the strongest and most important themes in Hamlet. The entire play revolves around the murder of King Hamlet. Betrayal is expanded even further, there is not one character who does not commit betrayal through the course of the play. The actions of betrayal in the play lead to the hurtful destruction of the characters.
The relationship between a father and his son is an important theme in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One, as it relates to the two main characters of the play, Prince Hal and Hotspur. These two characters, considered as youths and future rulers to the reader, are exposed to father-figures whose actions will influence their actions in later years. Both characters have two such father-figures; Henry IV and Falstaff for Prince Hal, and the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Worcester for Hotspur. Both father-figures for Hal and Hotspur have obvious good and bad connotations in their influence on the character. For example, Falstaff, in his drinking and reveling, is clearly a poor influence for a future ruler such as Prince Hal, and Worcester, who shares Hotspur's temper, encourages Hotspur to make rash decisions. The entire plot of the play is based on which father-figure these characters choose to follow: had they chosen the other, the outcome would have been wholly different.
This is a prime example of Richard using his authority by way of rulings and pronouncements rather than action, even to the point of disallowing an action. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is quite ready to do battle no matter what the consequences. Moments before Richard puts a stop to the proceedings, Bolingbroke says, ". . . let no noble eye profane a tear / For me, if I be gorged with Mowbray's spear" (1.3.58-59). Here is a man who is resolved in his intent.