Complex Character of King Richard II A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and
A Midsummer's Night's Dream, King Richard II, and King Lear A Midsummer's Night's Dream, King Richard II, and King Lear all represent different philosophies people hold regarding the phenomenon of their lives. The relationships between humans and outside forces differ between the plays too. A Midsummer's Night's Dream emphasizes natures part in human life. It is seen as the driving force for everything good and bad. Divine decree is the emphasis in King Richard II. The characters all seem to
The Character of King Richard II in William Shakespeare's Play Shakespeare wrote ‘King Richard II’ in the 16th/17th Century, about 200 years after Richard was on the throne. His initial intent was to point out key factors within the Elizabethan monarchy. Queen Elizabeth was compared to King Richard because of her lack of an heir, her inclination towards heavy taxes and the indulgence of her favourites. Elizabethan critics viewed the play as being politically dangerous towards Queen Elizabeth’s
Though King Richard II and King Henry V are both highly theatrical figures in their public performance as kings, both monarchs exemplify different “fictions of kingship.” In the two plays, Shakespeare effectively conveys divergent means by which a king can be a bad and tyrannical leader and by which a king can be a good and just leader. King Richard II proves to be an unsuccessful ruler, because he is too preoccupied with his own wants and desires and shows no redeeming qualities of suitable king
The Humility of Kings in Richard II through Henry V Though Shakespeare was a conservative, he believed in the humility of Kings. The plays Richard II through Henry V assert Shakespeare's idea that a King must understand the common man to be a good ruler. These four plays chronicle the history of three Kings' ability to recognize, relate to, and be part of the humanity he rules. Shakespeare advocates his belief with the falling of Richard II, who could not or would not understand his subjects;
Shakespeare’s Development of the King in Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, Henry V Shakespeare's plays beginning with Richard II and concluding with Henry V presents an interesting look at the role of a king. England's search for "the mirror of all Christian kings" provided the opportunity to explore the many facets of kingship showing the strengths and weaknesses of both the position and the men who filled that position. Through careful examination, Shakespeare develops the "king" as a physical, emotional
predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king. Henry proved
Murder of the King in Hamlet, Richard II, Henry VIII, Macbeth and Julius Caesar Kings are everywhere in Shakespeare, from Hamlet to Richard the Second, from Henry the Eighth to Macbeth; many of the plays contain a central element of a king or autocratic head of state such as Julius Caesar, for example. They focus more specifically on the nature of that person's power, especially on the question of removing it; what it means on both a political and psychological level, how it can be achieved
King Richard II and King Henry IV both share similar qualities in being a ruler. They both share the qualities of the Divine right of kings. It all come does down to power with each of them. They believe that they were selected by the Lord to become ruler of their people. I believe King Henry IV is a better ruler because he is not as power hungry as King Richard II. Throughout the play King Richard II illustrates the privilege of sanctity of a person. According to our notes the sanctity of a person
Transformation of Costume Selection and Incorporating Props into the performance of Shakespeare's plays of King Richard, Richard the II and Richard III Performance of plays can take various shapes depending on the director's perspective of the text, the key element, within the framework of the play. In addition text can be interpreted different ways, regarding directing technique, such as style and action choices, and scenery decisions. These factors contribute to the overall result of the performance
Appearance vs. Reality in Henry IV Shakespeare's play Henry IV begins with a king (King Henry) beginning a pilgrimage after killing King Richard II. Henry believes that by gaining the throne of England he has done an honourable deed, yet he admits that the fighting and bloodshed could continue, A. . . ill sheathed knife . . . @ (I.1.17). He, also, admits that his own son, Prince Hal, is not honourable enough to occupy the throne, Asee riot and dishonour stain the brow
the notion of kingship. Through his plays, he questions the divine right of kings, which the kings and the aristocracy used heavily in their favour to win the people's love. In Macbeth, King Richard II and King Henry IV part 1, Shakespeare shows us his opinion of kingship in general. Although the plays are written about individual kings, I think that Shakespeare used the plays as an opportunity to voice his opinion on kings and kingship in general. This was assisted by the fact that he was not prohibited
King Richard My report is on Richard I, byname Richard the Lion-Hearted. He was born September 8, 1157 in Oxford, England. He died on April 6, 1199 in Chalus, England. His knightly manner and his prowess in the Third Crusade(1189-92) made him a popular king in his own time, as well as the hero of countless romantic legends. He has been viewed less kindly by more recent historians and scholars. Richard was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and he was given the duchy of
difference between King Henry and Prince Hal's style of statecraft, first we have to understand the basic philosophy of each. The King belives that to effectively lead the country one needs to lead by example. According to the King's philosophy the best man is the one who lives a pure life and garners respect and honor from all men. To the King's way of thinking Hotspur is more fit to be a King than Prince Hal, a comparison the King makes several times. In Act I, scene i King Henry makes his first
that King Richard had a part to play in the murder of his uncle the Duke of Gloucester? Could the reader possibly pick up this assumption having known nothing about the play? These are all factors that one must find by reading in between the lines, noticing and understanding the silence that is exchanged. For the silence is just as important as the speech.Why is it assumed that King Richard II has anything to do with the murder? Let us review a scene from the play were Gaunt accuses Richard of being
The Characters of Bolingbroke and Richard II "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. When Bolingbroke first appears in the play, he is accusing Thomas Mowbray
Within Shakespeare’s play Richard II there are many questionable and untrusting characters. Truth and duty are only illusions within the play. Lust for power and control override the order of England and its ordained king. It’s believed that it is by the will of God that Richard is king. No mortal man can come between what God has set before them as rule. The final decision is God’s and the only way that God’s choice can be changed is by God himself, and no one else. God takes
Richard II in William Shakespeare The plays of William Shakespeare are generally easy to categorize, and the heroes of these plays are equally so. However, in the history play Richard II, Shakespeare’s king is more ambiguous than Hamlet or Romeo– there is no clear cut answer to whether Richard II is a tragic hero... or simply a tragedy. Historically, Richard II was crowned at a very young age, forced into the role of monarch, and thrust without hesitation into the murky world of political intrigue
The English Reformation During the reign of King Richard II "England was experiencing her first serious outbreak of heresy for nearly a millennium." This widespread heresy, known as Lollardy, held the reformation of the Catholic Church as its main motivation, and was based upon the ideas of John Wyclif, an Oxford scholar. "All kinds of men, not only in London but in widely-separated regions of the country, seized the opportunity to voice criticisms both constructive and destructive of the present
The Passing of the Crown by Shakespeare's Henries In his histories from Richard II through Henry V to Richard III, Shakespeare depicts the English monarchy as a game between family and friends of vying for a gold ring -- the crown. Shakespeare gives his reader a central metaphor through which to see this equation in King Henry IV part one. The prank Prince Hal, later King Henry V, and his friend, Poins, play on their friends, particularly Falstaff, parallels the plot's focal passing of