Michael Thornton makes seemingly logical arguments, however he only provides questionable and unsubstantiated facts as support. For example, he constantly refers to Richard smothering his young nephews on the basis that he killed them to secure his claim to the throne. While the author seems firm in his position, he does not once mention the immense amount of doubt that has been cast on Richard being murderer. As one peels back the layers or historical inaccuracies, some erroneous and others intentional, it becomes clear that Richard the Third was more likely the victim of political propaganda than a brutal and merciless child killer. Recent archaeological finds under an English parking lot, widely believed to be the remains of Richard, strongly …show more content…
Alternatively, it could be he is so disillusioned that he can’t help but ignore any credible evidence. In either situation, only presenting one side of this story without any credence to the opposition does not, in my mind, help to build any credibility. Furthermore, Thornton fails to cite almost all of the so-called “facts” he uses. Along with his claim that Richard was a cold-blooded killer, he simply glosses over large sections of English history all while painting Richard as a villain. He frames Richard’s rise to the throne as trying to “hack his way” through, executions Richard ordered as unprovoked murders, and the death of Edward, Prince of Wales, as Richard’s handiwork. Despite these statements being obviously slanted, not a single citation is given. I can only suppose the author expects me to trust him, but on what basis? He never mentioned that he was a historian, let alone that he even researched the topic in any significance. I personally researched Thornton, and one of the few credentials I could find for him revealed he was a gossip writer, far from any sort of authoritative …show more content…
For instance, Thornton casts Richard in a bad light. Apart from referring to him as a “child killer” in the title, he also describes the former king as a “serial killer”, “usurper-king”, “a murderous pragmatist”, “throne robber”, and a “mass-murderer”. Along with this, he casts Richard’s enemies in a positive light, stating that the uprising against him was “popular”, Lord Hastings’ and other officials’ executions as “cruel”, and Henry VI as “saintly”. Thornton uses these terms to take what might seem to be a distant historical figure and make Richard into a dark and selfish killer--someone that should be feared and distrusted. He also paints the image of Richard’s nephews as being innocent children who were inhumanely smothered by Richard in their sleep. All this imagery serves to tip the scales out of Richard’s favor and give him the impression of a wretched, deformed being that murders small children. Even without serious consideration of the validity of the history surrounding Richard, one can’t help but feel a bit uneasy towards him after the manner in which Thornton describes him. Thornton takes advantage of the natural urge to defend children and the fear of anyone different than ourselves, in this case Richard’s being physically deformed, and uses it support his claim that he was indeed a killer. On top of that, he turns the Lancasters into venerable, chaste, and innocent
This paper examines the argument and theory proposed by Richard H. Tyre of the six basic movements of a plot in a hero story. Although Tyre’s theory does seem too narrow focused, fixed and direct to fit with the plot structure of all hero stories, he makes a great point and provides adequate evidence to support his statement.
Richards usurpation of the throne was not the only reason why people did not like or trust him however. Richard, Duke of Gloucester arrested Hastings on a false charge of treason on the 13th June 1483 and had him beheaded without trial (beheading for treason was common for nobility). This alarmed other nobles who were shocked at the speed which Richard was prepared to dispatch people who he though could possible oppose him. Hastings was a well liked noble who had got on incredibly well with Richards brother Edward. This infuriated many nobles as the execution without trial was again unjust.
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
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.
Before reading Peter S. Donaldson’s article, "Cinema and the Kingdom of Death: Loncraine’s Richard III," I slept eight hours, ate a well-balanced breakfast, and ran a mile to warm up. I knew from reading "In Fair Verona," that Donaldson writes for fit athletes of an intense analytical and intellectual field. Focus, pacing, and especially composure are essential to navigating his intricate and challenging course of connections, allusions, Shakespeare, media, history, past, present, future and beyond. I was prepared, though, and began slowly, but confidently, on another one of Donaldson’s awesome paths. And this time, I just may have created some of my own.
As the inspector begins to investigate the murders of the boys he collects history books that he believes will give him insight into Richard III and his horrible crime. The first history book he comes upon is a historical reader which bears “the same relation to history as Stories from the Bible bears to Holy Writ.” This book explains the tale of the princes in the tower using short paragraphs and full page illustrations which teaches an important moral, but adds no insight to the real story of Richard III. The second text he uses to investigate the crime is a proper school history book. The first realization he comes to while reading this book is that all school history books seem to separate history into easy to digest sections associated by the different reigns that never intersect or overlap. The second realization is that Richard III must have had a towering personality to have made himself “one of the best-known rulers” in two thousand years o...
“I am determined to prove a villain / and hate the idle pleasures of these days. / Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, / by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.” Richard III, the evil Duke of Gloucester, is fighting a bloody road to the crown in Shakespeare's dramatic play. Stopped by nothing and with brilliant intelligence, Richard fights his way to the king’s position, clothing his villany with “old odd ends stolen out of holy writ.” With no one to fully trust, Richard breaks many hearts by killing all people in his way, and becomes the unstoppable villain. He hides behind a shield of kindness and care, but when he is alone, his real soul comes alive. Sending murderers, or killing people himself, he has no mercy. Manipulating Lady Anne to marry him and promising Buckingham rewards for his deeds, he knows what he is doing, and won’t stop until the crown lies at his feet.
Gifted with the darkest attributes intertwined in his imperfect characteristics, Shakespeare’s Richard III displays his anti-hero traits afflicted with thorns of villains: “Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous / By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams” (I.i.32-33). Richard possesses the idealism and ambition of a heroic figure that is destined to great achievements and power; however, as one who believes that “the end justifies the means”, Richard rejects moral value and tradition as he is willing to do anything to accomplish his goal to the crown. The society, even his family and closest friends, repudiate him as a deformed outcast. Nevertheless, he cheers for himself as the champion and irredeemable villain by turning entirely to revenge of taking self-served power. By distinguishing virtue ethics to take revenge on the human society that alienates him and centering his life on self-advancement towards kingship, Richard is the literary archetype of an anti-hero.
The undeniable pursuit for power is Richard’s flaw as a Vice character. This aspect is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play King Richard III through the actions Richard portrays in an attempt to take the throne, allowing the audience to perceive this as an abhorrent transgression against the divine order. The deformity of Richards arm and back also symbolically imply a sense of villainy through Shakespeare’s context. In one of Richard’s soliloquies, he states how ‘thus like the formal Vice Iniquity/ I moralize two meanings in one word’. Through the use of immoral jargons, Shakespeare emphasises Richard’s tenacity to attain a sense of power. However, Richard’s personal struggle with power causes him to become paranoid and demanding, as demonstrated through the use of modality ‘I wish’ in ‘I wish the bastards dead’. This act thus becomes heavily discordant to the accepted great chain of being and conveys Richard’s consumption by power.
Set in the midst of a Nazi-like Britain during the 1930's, it provides more art deco and imagery than is actually in the text. It uses this as the opening focus to show Richards' ascent to power and his eventual downfall more as the leader of a fascist regime, than someone cunning for the role of King. Here big band jives lay the groundwork to the victory ball of King Edward where we are introduced to many of the characters not seen until much later in the text, Rivers, King Edward, Queen Elizabeth, Duchess of York, young York, etc. Richard then begins his soliloquy, "Now is the winter of our discontent..." He partially addresses the crowd to show support for his newly indoctrinated King and brother and the first half of his speech is received by warm applause at his play on words. The second half is completed at the urinal of the palaces' bathroom partly mumbled to the wall. His focus on his villainous ways addressed to the camera. Then he meets Clarence on his way to the Tower to await his execution. The Richard speaks of the forthcoming death of Clarence and his need to marry the Lady Anne, addressed to the camera.
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
He breeds anger in Clarence and the populace, not of himself, but of Edward and the rightful heirs. "We are not safe, Clarence, we are not safe,"3 he exclaims as his brother is hauled away to the tower. He preys on the "hateful luxury And bestial appetite"4 of the citizenry, catapulting himself to the thrown over a heap of bodies: deaths that hang on his head. But, it is Richard's attitude that his end goal of the crown justifies the murderous means that so closely links ...
By bowing down to the needs of his subjects, a king allows others to dictate his actions and hence compromises the essence of his power. Paradoxically, failing to heed the desires of his subjects transforms a king into a self-indulgent tyrant and propels his kingdom towards ruin and decay. Can a sovereign rule his subjects without considering their general welfare? If a king rules unconscionably, do his subjects have the right to replace him? William Shakespeare's Richard II considers this authoritarian quandary at great length. In particular, John of Gaunt's "other Eden" monologue (2.1.31-68) delves into the perilous nature of unfettered autocracy. Gaunt proclaims that King Richard should relinquish his crown, because he has figuratively raped "mother" England by exploiting the loyalty of his subjects and debasing the grandeur of "this blessed plot" (2.1.50) for his own personal glory.
"What tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove" is the sentence which concludes a short speech delivered by Henry Bolingbroke to King Richard II (1.1.6). These words are but the first demonstration of the marked difference between the above-mentioned characters in The Tragedy of Richard II. The line presents a man intent on action, a foil to the title character, a man of words.