Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
downfall of Richard Ii
richard III acts of evil
essays on richard the iii
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: downfall of Richard Ii
Richard III is known to this day as a ruthless king, remaining infamous for his alleged murders and nefarious acts. There are many rumors surrounding his rule, telling stories of his horrid temperament and appearance, and how he unscrupulously killed anyone who might oppose his reign. But modern historians are taking another look at his history, and some say he was not as bad as the stories claimed. Despite Richard III’s notoriety and bloody rise to power, he served as a successful king of England because of his skill in battle, unyielding determination, and political prowess.
When Richard III was born on October 2, 1452, he had little expectation of rising to power, or ever becoming king. Richard was the youngest son of thirteen children, while the House of Lancaster was still in control of the throne. He was despised since birth, looked down on by his brothers , and, allegedly, ugly and disfigured. Legend of the day claimed that he spent two years in his mother’s womb, and had a full head of shoulder-length hair at birth . It was also rumored that Richard developed scoliosis, and, according to Shakespeare, looked like a “foul, hunch-back’d toad” . Whether these allegations were true or not, the young Richard would soon begin to prove his worth.
Richard was born against the background of the Wars of the Roses, a bloody conflict between two noble houses, the Lancastrians, and the Yorks, of which Richard was a member. Even at seventeen, Richard was given command over a division of the army , and began to gain recognition. He was known throughout the kingdom as a brave and hardy soldier, full of vigor and military intelligence . When his family succeeded in seizing the throne and his brother, Edward IV, became king, Richard was gi...
... middle of paper ...
... really committed all those murders is debatable. Certainty lies in his skill in battle, his determination and dedication, and his political prowess. Richard III should be remembered for these qualities just as much as for the murders and misdeeds for which he is currently assessed.
Bibliography
Balchin, Nigel. “Richard III,” in British History Illustrated, Vol. 1, no. 4 (October, 1974), pp. 29-47.
Beahrs, Virginia Oakley. “White Boar, Red Dragon,” in British Heritage, Vol. 6, no. 5 (August/September, 1985), pp. 46-57.
“Richard III (r. 1483-1485)”[http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/Kingsand
QueensofEngland/TheYorkists/RichardIII.aspx], 1/22/2014.
Ross, Charles. Richard III. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981.
Shakespeare, William, Richard III. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine (eds.) New York: Washington Square Press, 1996.
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...
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
Richard II serves as a model to show that having a powerful sense of carelessness as a duke can bring tremendous consequences. King Richard was terribly
Many historians conclude that Richard’s indifference to his wife signifies to that the Lionheart had a deviant sexual orientation. Documented records of Richard's adolescent infatuation and behavior also suggest underlying homosexual attraction for young Prince Philip Augustus of France, when the two princes were teenage friends in the French court in Paris. A similar innuendo is offered for adult King Richard’s very close bond of friendship during the Third Crusade with his...
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)
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.
King Richard II is Shakespeare's example of a king who removes himself from the reality of the common people. Richard views his position as a source of amusement. His "cares" as King, other than an opportunity for an agreeable audience, are merely a burden. Instead of investigating the accusations of treachery from Henry and Mawbrick, he exiles both men as an easy way out. Richard was born a King, and knows no life other than that of royalty. Unfortunately the lesson that must know men to rule them costs him the thrown. Richard's lesson influences his usurper and his usurper's heir to the thrown, demonstrating to them both the value of humility.
... bloody pathway to kingship. Filled with scorn against a society that rejects him and nature that curses him with a weakened body, Richard decides to take revenge and ultimately declares a war between himself and the world. By achieving goals for the mere sake of self-advancement, a self-made hero, an ambitious king, and an atrocious villain were created. Richard assumes that love forms a bond which men can break, but fear is supported by the dread of ever-present pain (Machiavelli ch. XXIV); thus, for true success the hero must be a villain too. Richard III becomes one of literature’s most recognized anti-heroes under the hands of Shakespeare as he has no objective or thought to take up any other profession than the art of hatred; however, ironically being a representative of a heroic ruler sent by God, he is made to commit murder to redeem society of their sins.
picture Richard III, will show the rapid rise and fall of the despot and the
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), 515-600.
Richard III couldn’t have been deformed as Shakespeare said that he was, because in real life Richard III was a knight that
"The Richard III Society." Richard III Society of NSW RSS. HRH The Duke of Clougester,
...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.”
Richard II is not your average king. He is useless with his power and does not know how to use it. He is the king of England when the play begins but shortly after his kingship is taken away from him. Richard II is a young man who has not matured much since his adolescence. He is disconnected from his land and its people, which becomes one of the downfalls of his crown. He has an extraordinary flair for poetic language. He is witty and poetic personality doesn’t work with his higher calling in life. A king should be strong and fearless. King Richard II is not a man of action and as the play advances, he gets into more and more trouble. As his end approaches, he becomes very poetic. Like most Shakespearean heroes, Richard II has a strong theatrical personality. He likes putting on a show and enjoys a bit of wordplay, even at his own expense. What sets him apart from other Shakespearean characters is the perverse joy he takes in his downfall.
Shakespeare, William. Richard III. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), 515-600.