Abstract This paper argues that the demise of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" was not due to Bolingbroke's invasion of England but due to Richard's own failings to act as an appropriate king. It develops the idea that Richard's character failures, his passivity and inability to act decisively, result in his loss of kingship. It examines how his numerous failures as king, such as his disconnection from his people and land, contribute to his removal form the throne. It shows that despite Bolingbroke's presence in the play, Richard's downfall is ultimately his own doing.
From the Paper "William Shakespeare's Richard II, is the dramatic portrayal of a king's downfall. The action of the play surrounds the deposition of an anointed but unworthy king, Richard II. Although he is stately and poetic, he fails miserably in his public role as a king because he is disconnected from his land and its people. Consequently, he is overthrown by his cousin Bolingbroke and eventually assassinated. However, despite Bolingbroke's connection to Richard's removal from the throne, Richard's fall ultimately is a result of his own inability to perform the duties of kingship. His continuous passivity and readiness to succumb to despair prove to be his definitive weaknesses and result in his final defeat. Richard is not fit to be king."
Abstract This paper compares Shakespeare's uses time in his plays "Richard II" and "Henry IV". The paper shows that Richard's inability to use time to his advantage while he reigned led Bolingbroke to feel justified in deposing him. On the other hand, the paper demonstrates how Hal was extremely good at using his time -- in secret, to hone his battlefield skills -- and because of this, he is able to defeat Hotspur. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while Richard was a procrastinator and philosophizer and Hotspur was rash and impatient, they both come to the same end-that is, subsumed by time and death.
From the Paper "Richard's reign is plagued with the consequences of his inaction, and although he attempts to dress his authority with powerful language, his lack of success at seeming to act makes him appear impotent, and therefore ripe for deposition. In the very first act of Richard II, we see Richard in the process of "staging" his power at court in a feeble attempt to resolve a dispute between Mowbray and Bolingbroke in which he, himself, is tacitly implicated. Richard certainly makes a show of being in control of the situation, but when the rhetoric between the two complainants becomes too hot, threatening to expose Richard's part in Glocester's death, Richard seems to be content to talk the two gentlemen down from their rage. It is a dangerous position to take, and it is not the first time that Richard has avoided this confrontation because we learn "[his] leisure would not let [him] hear" the dispute in the past. (Richard I.I)"
Tags: hal, hotspur, richard, bolingbroke, time, history, battle
A discussion on the decline of static, hierarchical structure versus the rise of individual power within a power structure in the play "Richard ll" by William Shakespeare.
Abstract The paper discusses "Richard ll " by William Shakespeare. The paper states that the play in itself is a representation of the decline of the static, hierarchical structure and of the rise of individual power within a power structure. The paper comments that the structure of the play shows four different phases. The first one is the initial state of the realm, with Richard II as King who acts like a sovereign, judging two noblemen and their dispute. The second phase occurs when Bolingbroke overthrows the King in III, 3, showing that a single individual has the power to thwart the King's plans. The third stage takes place when Richard II gives up his power to Bolingbroke. The paper notes that this is the symbol of the decline of the royal power. Finally, the last and fourth point is the official coronation ceremony of Bolingbroke as King Henry. This event is the proof that a single individual can rise within a power structure. The paper also includes a summary of the play.
From the Paper "Bolingbroke defeats Richard II, in III, 3, whereas he is supposed to be less powerful than the King. Indeed, if the King would have managed his troops well, he would have been at the head of an army of thousands soldiers, ready to fight for him. Instead, he is only surrounded by some close allies and friends. On the other hand, Bolingbroke has managed to gather together a lot of men coming different places, such as Brittany (II, 1, 287-290). Bolingbroke invades the north coast of England while Richard II departs to Ireland to make war. One by one, Richard's allies desert him and join Bolingbroke. When the King goes back, it is too late and he has to surrender. This shows, on the one hand, the bad management of Richard II, and on the other hand, that a single individual such as Bolingbroke has been able to raise enough resources by himself to counterattack a King and his power. This is where the difference between a great leader and a leader by lineage is."
Abstract By analyzing "King Henry IV", "The Tragedy of King Richard III" and "The Tragedy of King Richard II", the paper shows that the underlying message in Shakespeare's history plays seems to be that kings who are extreme in their execution of power provide a representation of a weak and vulnerable monarchy, whereas kings who apply a modicum of moderation to their exercise of power provide a representation of a strong and indestructible monarchy. The paper shows that King Henry IV is the epitome of a successful ruler, in the simple fact that he manages to remain alive at the end of the play and do what is best for the country and its people by continuing to fight the rebel armies until they have lost the ongoing battle with the monarch. This in and of itself suggests that he is able to find a delicate balance between being overly powerful and yielding to others under pressure. The paper shows, on the other hand, that King Richard II is unable to exert any power whatsoever, partly due to his fear of confrontation and partly due to his overwhelmingly pathological view of himself as being a Christ figure. It shows that Richard III is, as well, equally unsuccessful as a ruler because he exerts too much power as a result of a delusional likeness with Richard II's antithesis, Satan.
From the Paper "Likewise, Richard III also holds himself in very delusional esteem, though it is expressed in a different manner than with Richard II. Like Richard II, Richard III believes he is worthy of the throne despite being, by definition, an illegitimate ruler. However, this misleading conviction triggers murderous ?[p]lots [he has] laid? (I.i.32), including the murder of his brother Clarence, the murder of King Edward's sons (including the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales), and an incestuous scheme to marry the late King's daughter, Elizabeth, in order to seem more fitting to be king. Undoubtedly, he believes wholeheartedly that he has been rejected and/or cheated by God, and that he is deserving of the kingship. His belief system allows his mental health to shatter in such a manner that leads way to an excessive use of force and power in order to obtain the things he so desires. His own delusional belief system leads the reader to deem it likely that Richard III is as much a Satan figure as Richard II is a Christ figure. The extreme self-views held by each of these kings guide them to act in highly radical manners that are not at all conducive to governing a successful monarchy."
Abstract This paper presents a comparison of William Shakespeare's "Richard II" and "Macbeth". The paper assesses to what extent these two plays endorse notions of divine right and royal absolutism. These terms are defined in order to facilitate an understanding of the thesis. The different motifs of the plays are examined in the paper.
From the Paper "Richard's eloquence and lack of propensity to enter into battle forms a strong contrast to Bolingbroke who is portrayed as a man of action. Shakespeare perhaps though viewed the latter as a bully as he wrestles the crown from an eloquently verbose Richard, 'With mine own hands I give away my crown, With mine own tongue deny my sacred state,'(4.1.199-200,Norton). Richard's words here abrogating his kingly, God-given status, but his actions on stage perhaps contradicting them. The semiotics of the crown are pivotal, the crown itself the symbol of a king. The crown though is a hollow void, and the mere possession of it does not confer the rightful status of a king. Bolingbroke himself is never completely at ease in his usurpation, as he acknowledges at the play's end, 'I'll make a voyage to the holy land, To wash this blood off from my guilty hand.'(5.6.47-48,IBID) The repeated Christ-like motif reiterates the injustice of Richard's fate."
Abstract In William Shakespeare's time, society adhered to the sacred view that it was God's Divine Will which selected the ruling monarch of the British nation. The playwright of "Richard II" and "Henry IV Part I", however, illustrates in these two history plays, a rather modernized concept of leadership that supports the Machiavellian view of power politics. The paper explains that Machiavelli's central argument in "The Prince" is that great politics are created and maintained by cunning men of high enterprise, who possess both virtue and prowess. The paper shows that despite their illegitimate claim and unconventional incarceration of the crown, the lead characters in Shakespeare's two plays, Henry Bolingbroke and his son Harry, showcase qualities that make them effective Machiavellian rulers who prove their worth as kings through their astute thoughts and actions.
From the Paper "Like a superior Machiavellian leader, Harry clearly shows the intelligence and aptitude for the psychological machinations required of capable kings. By his cleverly devised plan of action, Harry is able to manipulate and deceive people into believing whatever his portrayals or intentions are required from them. He does not show his full potential and aspirations to be a great leader right away, as Harry is fully aware, there are certain rules involved in getting and keeping power. A regal king is often imprisoned within the masks he must wear successfully to retain his power and be able to change his character donning different ones to keep up with his fickle fortune. Harry illustrates that if circumstance calls for heroic and daring behaviour, such as when he battles Hotspur to protect his father's throne, he becomes the lion."
Abstract This paper discusses how William Shakespeare includes many different views of history throughout his history plays, especially in the Henriad tetralogy. It looks at how in "Richard II", "Henry IV" and "Henry V", Shakespeare focuses on the political aspect of history and how, although he focuses on the political situations of history, he does not always include historical information, thus creating a distorted view of the history of these stories.
From the Paper "In 1397, the struggles between King Richard's friends and his nobles erupted again, leading to the opening of Richard II. While the exact cause of the crisis is still unknown and unclear, it is believed that some may have offended King Richard. He arrested Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick, and all three men were convicted; Bolingbroke's position is vague, and probably did not have much to do with this at the time. In January of 1398, Bolingbroke charged Norfolk with treason; the second meeting of the committee in April is the opening scene of Richard II. Perhaps if the readers had known about these historical events prior to reading this play, they might have a different opinion of some of the characters and situations that occur throughout it. "
