Question #6: Discuss two or more of the characters’ motives-Henry, Eleanor, Richard, Geoffrey, John, Phillip and Alais. What does each other want for themselves and from each other?
Alais is Henry’s mistress from a treaty that was made between France and England when she was young. In the play you learn that she is to marry whoever becomes the new king, but she does not want that to happen. Alais says, “ I do not like your Johnny.” Henry replies, “He’s a good boy.” Basically all Alais wants is for Henry to not disinherit being king and take her to be his permanent mistress. She is in love with Henry and throughout the play you come to realize that is not only her that loves him, but also henry, but of course he will not do anything about it
…show more content…
First power, amongst the royal family the mother, Eleanor is the Queen; the father is King Henry, the youngest son John, middle son Geoffrey, and oldest son Richard. In the play not one, but all of these characters have power in some kind of way. King Henry spent his life conquering many regions and wants to continue to conquer by passing king down to one of his three sons. A quote from the play that shows the greed that having power can create Henry asked, “Isn’t being chancellor power enough?” Geoffrey replies, “It’s not the power I feel deprived of. It’s the mention I miss.” Geoffrey does not think he will receive enough respect if he is just the chancellor and his younger brother John is king. When he comes to Richard, the oldest brother he thinks he should be king because of his army he has behind him, but this is where futility comes into play. It is not always about war and killing people to prove your powerful, but in Richards’s ways that is the only way. Richard says, “I am a constant soldier, a sometime poet, and I will be king.” This quote describes the type of person Richard wants to be, he wants to have all the power to rein over the castle and do it through war. Each of the family members is jealous of one another especially the children of the king and queen, it is pretty much a sibling rivalry between them. Having power can be a good thing or bad thing, in this situation the king and queens children have a different view on having power and what they would do if crowned
As the play goes on and tells the story the only important factor is kinship and tyranny to present a good king. Defining a good king can follow up
“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.
Throughout the play, Prince Henry develops from a rascal to a responsible adult and by doing so, earns the respect and acceptance from his father King Henry IV. In act one, Shakespeare introduces the idea that Prince Henry is an inadequate heir to the throne. The play
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 ...
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.
In conclusion, the social hierarchy in King Lear is one that values land and royalty by marriage. The desire to obtain either of the two was so great in the characters of Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall that they were willing to go against the hierarchy itself and abandon all notions of morality. It was the actions of these four characters combined that brought about the destruction of the royal family and the downfall of Lear’s kingdom.
Shakespeare constructs King Richard III to perform his contextual agenda, or to perpetrate political propaganda in the light of a historical power struggle, mirroring the political concerns of his era through his adaptation and selection of source material. Shakespeare’s influences include Thomas More’s The History of King Richard the Third, both constructing a certain historical perspective of the play. The negative perspective of Richard III’s character is a perpetuation of established Tudor history, where Vergil constructed a history intermixed with Tudor history, and More’s connection to John Morton affected the villainous image of the tyrannous king. This negative image is accentuated through the antithesis of Richards treachery in juxtaposition of Richmond’s devotion, exemplified in the parallelism of ‘God and Saint George! Richmond and victory.’ The need to legitimize Elizabeth’s reign influenced Shakespeare’s portra...
Instead of a powerful physical image, like Queen Elizabeth I, Richard implements elegant soliloquies, engages in witty banter, and attunes the audience to his motives with frequent asides. This flexibility demonstrates Richard's thespian superiority and power over the rest of the play's cast, making him a unique character in the play, but why does he do it? This constant battle between characters to claim mastery over a scene leaves the audience with a seemingly overlooked source of power for an actor [clarify/expand].
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.
It first became clear that Shakespeare’s King Lear and Laurence’s Hagar Shipley were similar main characters when their personalities were developed with flaws. King Lear was immediately revealed as an imperfect character when he was shown in his somewhat conflicting roles as a father and a king. After resolving to divide his kingdom amongst his three daughters Lear develops a way to decide how his power and land will be divided. Looking to his three children Lear probes, “Tell me, my daughters/ (Since now we will divest us both of rule,/ Interest of territory, cares of state),/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most?/ That we our largest bounty may extend/ Where nature doth with merit challenge.”(I.i.49-54) It is at this point in the play that King Lear reveals himself as superficial. Knowing he had already divided his land in three Lear could have presented it to his daughters as each receives one third of the kingdom. However, Lear is flawed in that he is superficial and rather than hand over his land and power he would rather hear his daughters competitively praise him for it. Similarly to Lear’s flaw Hagar is...
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
These two plays show dramatically the struggle for authoritative power over the characters lives, families, and societies pressures. The overall tragedy that befalls them as they are swept up in these conflicts distinctly portrays the thematic plot of their common misconception for power and control over their lives.
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.
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of