The Loss of the Throne by Richard III There are many views as to whether Richard III lost his throne, or if it was a mainly Tudor advance which secured it. Overall I think that Henry Tudor did not actively gain the throne decisively, in fact Richard III lost it from making key mistakes throughout his reign, and at Bosworth. Richard weakened his grasp on the throne by indulging in a vast plantations policy which gave too much power to Northerners and inevitably made him dependant on these few. The fact that Northerners were given such a huge dependence enraged the South, and rid Richard of many possible backers during a war. Richard had also been so determined to suppress any rebellions and secure Henry Tudors downfall that he spent vast National funds on these ventures. He eventually was weakening the nations funding in huge amounts. Richard had made large mistakes in his previous years, including when he offered the Duke of Brittany a whole legion of British Archers in return for Henry as a prisoner. This event backfired when Henry fled to France after hearing of the plot, he then revealed this offer to the King of France, which enraged him, as the British were cooperating with the Bretons. The King of France gave Henry huge support, including financial backing, and military backing so that he could overthrow Richard III. It is certain that lacking this support Henry Tudors attempted revolt would have been suppressed. 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. Richard knew that his popularity had been diminished and was
...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
Another cause for his unpopularity was the question of benevolences. When he was crowned Richard promised to stop the use of benevolences as this was particularly disliked by the nobles. However because of the war with Scotland , the threat of Henry and rebellions Richard had to later ask for benevolences once again. This made him even more
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.
give in to Richard that quickly, or at all. Also we know that the only
But Buckingham knows what to do. He tells Richard to take two priests with him, since the people are very religious and will follow the priest's’ actions. After doing as if he was denying the request for being the king, the crowd tried to persuade him. Because of doing as if he didn’t want the crown, the crowd thought they could trust him more, and begged him to be the king. Eventually he said yes, and finally became king of England. He orders Buckingham to kill prince Edward, but Buckingham refuses to. He asks for his Earlship, but Richard gets mad and dismisses him. He knows he also has to get rid of Buckingham now, since he is not loyal to him anymore. He hires a murderer called Tyrrel to kill the princes and finally he got rid of
Raging to be king, William would do whatever it took to be the King of England. William would go into war and kill other men to have the superior power. William’s army killed Harold, William’s enemy, so that he would be king. After Harold was dead, this left the throne wide open for William. By the end of his life, William had conquered the thing he wanted most, to be king.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
who stands in his way. Richard talks about a pretext for his villainy. by pointing out his physical deformity. “Why, I in this weak piping. time of peace and peace.
"therefore, since I can not prove a lover, To entertain these fair well spoken days, I am determined to be a villain".As a villain Richard must be heartless, he can not let his emotions interfere with his actions.
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.
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
also said that Richard was always plotting ways that he could become king such as killing his brother Clarence and killing young
...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.
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
Nevertheless, as a man of action, Bolingbroke has achieved for himself the goal of retrieving his father Gaunt's estates and much more. He, in the end, is king, King Henry IV. And though Richard as king was full of pomp and ceremony, those things were no match for ambition carried to its fullest. His strong words belied incompetence as a ruler, and he could not hold his position. It seems that it was inevitable that Bolingbroke would be the victor at last. Richard should have taken more note of his usurper, before he was such, this man he called "[Gaunt's] bold son" (1.1.3).