Abstract This paper questions the reasons for KingRichardII's demise, whether he was to blame, whether he was irresponsible and whether it was a sin to kill him. It reflects upon these issues and also discusses if whether despite his downfall brought about by his own actions, Richard grows as a character in the end.
From the Paper "King Richard is not a man of action and as the play advances and he gets into more and more trouble, his end approaches and he becomes most poetic of all. He shows himself to be a poet and a dreamer. At Flint castle he asks Aumerle ??.Shall we call back Northumberland, and send Defiance to the traitor, and so die?? And Aumerle replies? No, good my lord; let's fight with gentle words?? This is also an example of another cause of King Richard's downfall. He surrounded himself with flatterers and poor advisors. Richard ignores the only sound advice he gets from Gaunt's death bed and even wishes that the doctor would quicken his death so that he can seize Gaunt's land."
Abstract When considering matters of discourse in William Shakespeare's plays, "The Tragedy of KingRichardII" and "The Tempest", KingRichard displays stronger leadership skills because he always speaks with eloquence. KingRichard speaks with a grace and style that cannot be matched by Prospero. This paper examines how speech is an important part of how a leader is perceived through KingRichard and Prospero.
From the Paper "This soliloquy also illustrates how Richard has come to terms with the fact that he is not destined to be king, as he once believed. He has resigned himself to the fact of how he must live out the rest of his life. This soliloquy is beautiful and heart wrenching. It is through Richard's speeches that Shakespeare is able to make Richard stand out. King Richard would be an ideal candidate for any political position in the world today. He was always able to deliver moving speeches and this is a valuable asset to any king. In fact, it is proof that a man's words can carry him far even if they cannot save his life."
Abstract The paper describes how Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated, before William Shakespeare's "RichardII" even begins. The paper elaborates that, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of KingRichardII himself. This brief essay discusses the importance of Thomas of Woodstock to the play and to the audience.
From the Paper "Before William Shakespeare's Richard II begins, Thomas of Woodstock (the Duke of Gloucester) has been assassinated. However, despite being relegated to a back-story character, Thomas of Woodstock is mentioned early and often, en route to becoming the key symbol foreshadowing the downfall of King Richard II himself. Thomas of Woodstock (not to be confused with one his supposed killers, Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk) has died suspiciously long before the opening of Richard II."
Abstract This paper examines two of Shakespeare's historical kings: RichardII and King Henry IV. The paper argues that RichardII was a king by divine right, whereas Henry IV was a Machiavellian king. The paper first assesses Richard's rule: he was not loved by his people or by those who served him; he did not earn his kingship, did not respect it and did not do anything in order to keep it. The paper contrasts this to King Henry IV, who was completely aware of his kingship and what he had to do to keep it; he acted aggressive, decisive and proactive. The paper then demonstrates how the characterization of these two kings demonstrates Shakespeare's unique ability to capture the diversity of humanity and create believable characters. The paper concludes that Shakespeare proves that kings are just like the rest of us--some of them capable and some of them negligent beyond belief. The paper quotes from both plays in order to supports its theses.
From the Paper "Richard II was a king by the divine right of kings and we only need to look at his actions to determine this fact. He would have never earned his kingship had it not been something that was given to him by right of his birth. In short, Richard is a bad king with no real vision. He never takes time to learn what it means to be king and, as a result, does not care about the responsibilities that come along with the title of being king. To make matters worse, he breaks laws and traditions that are essential to his own kingship and his bad behavior forces those under him to feel helpless, hopeless, and without direction. He does not care for the people and while he may have been an intelligent man, he was not strong in the way that a king needs to be strong. Undoubtedly, King Richard's strongest and best characteristic was his eloquence."
An analysis of the Globe Theatre's production of William Shakespeare's "RichardII" looking at interpretations of the play and the politics it embodies.
Abstract This paper provides a personal interpretation the all original all-male production of William Shakespeare's "RichardII" at the restored Globe Theatre in London. Through an examination of the text, references, humour and pathos in the interaction of the characters, it looks at the transformation of the weak, arrogant monarch into the pathos-filled figure of the defeated king that is the centre around which the story revolves.
From the Paper "The historical walls around the play, the political background that serves to propel to plot forward is, in its way, nothing but that: mere background, a canvass onto which Richard's tragedy is painted in rich hues. And yet, I must hasten to add that this interpretation is not absolute: rather, it is my perception of the way the Globe production interpreted Richard II, and therefore it is that interpretation that I would argue for in this paper. As Brooker notes, ?while any number of valid interpretations is possible ? and so the celebration of these multiple readings for their own sake is misguided ? these various, contradictory meanings need to be argued for and supported if they are to extend beyond the microsphere of the individual reading.?"
Abstract This paper argues that the demise of William Shakespeare's "RichardII" 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 explains that, in "RichardII" and "Henry IV", William Shakespeare explores the issue of kingship by depicting RichardII and Henry IV as polar opposites. The author points out that RichardII, whose claim to the throne is considered legitimate but whose ability to lead is poor, is regarded as the complacent and lyrical king; whereas, Henry IV, whose claim to the throne in terms of the laws of succession is unstable, has won the support of the people based on his merit. The paper stresses that the perspective of Hal benefits from the experience of both his predecessors in that he is the legal successor to his father. The paper includes several quotations.
From the Paper "Shakespeare has an ambivalent attitude towards kingship. He does provide an argument in favor of rightful succession to Richard's throne and the maintenance of traditional values embodied in the crown and the state under its rule, in the voice of Carlisle, for example. Yet at the same time, he clearly illustrates the destructive nature of kingship on the individual behind the crown. There are moral questions raised which are never answered which in itself casts doubt on the values inherent in kingship. For example, we are never provided with a suitable moral explanation for, and are never really comfortable with, Hal's renouncement of Falstaff."
Abstract This paper explains why "RichardII" is the tragedy of a king in which the personal element is completely insignificant. The action of this play has very little to do with human motives; instead, inexorable circumstances determine the outcomes.
Abstract The author compares and contrasts the rule of the two kings in Shakespeare plays, "Winter's Tale" and "The Tragedy of KingRichard III." The theme running through both plays is that power corrupts, and this is the theme that runs through both of these plays. KingRichard is portrayed as an absolute ruler destroyed by his thirst for absolute power. King Leontes, is a king more paranoid than perhaps even Lear who refuses to believe even the gods who say that his wife and friend are not involved in an adulterous relationship. He is also an absolute ruler who believes that he knows even better, than the gods themselves.
From the Paper "Shakespeare's Richard is a thoroughly rotten villain. This is made clear to us in Act One, scene 1. Angry over the limits of his physical deformity, and, perhaps, the low social status accorded him as the very sparest of spare heirs, Richard vows to overcome his limitations. In line 30 of this speech, Richard says, "I am determined to prove a villain." Most would agree that these are not the words of a person who has the best interests of his fellow human beings at heart. If one needs further proof, Richard goes on to describe a plot that pits his two brothers, Clarence and Edward, against each other - hopefully resulting in both brothers' deaths."
Tags: absolute, iii, power, richard, shakespeare, tale, winter
Abstract This paper examines how KingRichard I made significant progress during his reign in England and how, while he was king, he succeeded in gaining land for the Christians. It shows how he led the Third Crusade with great compassion and wisdom and how he was able to think in different ways in regards to strategy, which allowed him to conquer land and earn the respect of many. It also shows how his efforts allowed the Christians a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem and how the land he conquered gave England strategic territory.
From the Paper "The Third Crusade is known as King Richard's ?great chivalrous episode.? 11 as well as the most "bloody and brutal" 12 of the eight crusades. Philip Augustus also took part in this Crusade. The two behaved like friends in public but were actually rivals. Despite the fact that Richard's expedition did not free the Holy Sepulcher, it did allow him the opportunity to demonstrate his courage. 13 This situation forced Richard and Saladin to come together and agree to put an end to the fighting. While they were negotiating, Saladin began to respect Richard. He even said that Richard was a ?man of honour and very brave . . . he plunges into the midst of danger and in his reckless indifference to his own safety.? 14 Indeed, Richard always displayed courage in the face of fear."
Abstract This paper compares Shakespeare's uses time in his plays "RichardII" 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 of the themes in "RichardII," written by William Shakespeare, particularly the concept of whether or not someone's birth right entitles him or her to remain in power.
Abstract This paper examines the play, "RichardII," written by William Shakespeare. The paper discusses the purpose of the play, particularly the theme of God choosing the heir to a throne. The women's issues that are presented in the play are also looked at by the paper. The paper focuses on whether or not someone's birth right entitles him or her to remain in power and how this relates to Richard.
From the Paper "Richard II is important because it allows for the audience to decide whether or not divine right is the correct way for a ruler to be chosen. Richard is a character who is presented as a weak and selfish man. He spends much of the kingdom's money on personal allowances, and his indecisiveness leads to many problems for the country. He is also unable to eliminate his enemies and those who threaten his power. Because of this, he is not seen as an effective ruler and is therefore eventually hated by the people. Richard uses language to get out of dealing with stressful situations, as he would rather talk about thing diplomatically than deal with them. He also hides behind the fact that the majority of Christians believed that the monarchy was appointed by God and, therefore, it should never be questioned. Richard held the belief that since he was born into this family, that God wished for him to be king and, thus, he should be permitted to hold this power until his death. Hereford was the man who much of the country thought of as the rule, as he was a very popular man who wished to become king, but Richard hid behind the conventions of the monarchy for a very long time."
Abstract This paper argues that, although few female characters appear in Shakespeare's "RichardII", and though the world of the play appears extremely masculine, the idea of motherhood, in fact, exerts considerable power throughout the play. It analyzes how the feminine experience of motherhood and maternity informs the rhetoric of patriotism and power in the play, thereby structuring the way that history is created and represented within it.
From the Paper "Queen Isabella is certainly the most tragic female character in Richard II; for most of the play (most saliently in scene 2.1) she is, as Holderness notes, "a virtually silent, self-effacing character, who is also ignored by everyone else in the room, virtually as an absence, a non-existence" (170). When she speaks, her words often seem as vague and unfocused as the sense of sorrow that haunts her; entering the garden with her attendants and asking "What sport shall we devise here in this garden/To drive away the heavy tough of care" (3.4.1-2), then stubbornly refusing every ?sport,? the Queen seems silly and childlike if not altogether mad, a pathetic Ophelia-like creature addled by grief. The Queen's speech in 2.2, though, is both eloquent and thematically significant, and its engagement with the issue of maternity is fascinating."
Tags: duchess, feminism, isabella, john, patriotism, queen, women, york
Abstract This paper presents a comparison of William Shakespeare's "RichardII" 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 This paper explains that, by naming his Chancellor and friend, Thomas Becket, to be Archbishop of Canterbury, King Henry II created the devastating conflict between these men, which affected not only the English monarchy, but also the country of England itself. The author points out that King Henry II's reign can be broken down into three specific events: (1) his endeavors to reconstruct the England of his grandfather, which started his quarrel with Becket; (2) his efforts to develop the legal machinery of his grandfather and create a new foundation for English government, which was soon thwarted by Becket; and (3) his vain attempts to resolve the problems of governing a difficult empire and controlling an unruly family by placing his sons in a position as sub-rulers in the empire.
From the Paper "King Henry II (1154-1189) was obviously one of the most remarkable and tragic figures in English history. A great amount of information is known about him, for he lived and reigned during an age when it was common to observe about the monarchy through oral and written records, especially when a king such as Henry II was popular with contemporary society. However, a good deal of his subjects hated him and his numerous enemies found him too intelligent and overwhelming; those that were close to him, such as Thomas Becket, feared his occasional outbursts of great anger and were often exasperated by his unpredictable reactions to certain situations within his realm and his family."
