Abstract
This paper discusses and analyzes William Shakespeare's historical plays, "Richard III" and "Henry IV." It discusses the characters of Richard III, formerly the Duke of Gloucester, and Falstaff, prince Hal's friend. The paper specifically focuses on their negative characteristics, such as lying and how they used lying to achieve their goals. The paper presents examples from both plays to illustrate the extent of each character's lying.

From the Paper
"During this conflict, Henry shows his bitterness at not having his eldest son, prince Hal to help him in the military matters. Hal is, at this time, with a group of rogues and villains who accompany him in his unlawful actions. Falstaff is the most famous of these, and seems to be Shakespeare's best known personification of falseness (a word from which his name is undoubtedly derived) lying and deceit. Falstaff uses dissembling as a means to achieve both fortune and fame, pretending even to have killed Hotspur in the battle. But even more so, he achieves through permanent lying to create almost a myth about himself, arguing through such skilled rhetoric that he even overtake Richard III, that honor and morality are of no use whatsoever and that they lose their value as soon as they are opposed to the only true thing there is: life."

Tags:morality, power, Falstaff

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."

Tags:Lord, Berkeley, Hotspur

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."

Tags:monarchy, usurpation, Bolingbroke, Mowbray

Abstract
The paper discusses how the women of Richard III are downtrodden and disenfranchised; they have experienced extreme losses in terms of their husbands and sons. Despite this apparent lack of power, however, the paper highlights how their actions bring about the changes that occur in Richard's kingdom. The paper describes how they act as agents in foreshadowing the play's actions and their actions bring about the changes that occur during the course of the play. The paper asserts that despite their lack of social power, the roles that women play in Richard III are actually of great importance.

From the Paper
"In most of Shakespeare's plays, women play an inferior role to that of men, even when those women are of noble birth. This portrayal is in many ways an accurate perception of the social behavior prevalent at the time. Women of noble birth were frequently used as pawns in political alliances and were often considered mere conduits for producing heirs to titles. While these social roles are evident in Richard III, women also play a symbolic role. They represent the changes that will take place in Richard's kingdom and, in fact, are used to predict events that take place over the course of the play. Although women are forced to play minor..."

Tags:women, shakespeare, richard iii

Abstract
The paper explains several examples of the history behind Richard III, about whom William Shakespeare wrote his famous, if historically inaccurate, play. The paper deals with the issue of political maneuvering and examines the villainy of Richard III and his rise to power.

From the Paper
"Richard III. Fact vs Fiction. The scandalous portrayal of Richard III was the result of political maneuvering by Henry IV and his Tudor successors who came to the throne by force. This was deemed necessary by the Tudors to make the people believe they had rescued the country from the York Dynasty."

Tags:william, shakespeare, historical, accurate, accuracy, history, Richard, III

Abstract
This paper provides both sides to the debate about whether or not Richard III killed his nephews. The paper determines that he did not and contends that the accusation was a propagandized lie.

From the Paper
"Today Richard III has become almost more of an idea rather than an actual historical figure. To this end it is often hard to separate fact from fiction when dealing with the plethora of information and different faces of the king. Literary a ..."

Tags:richard III, murder, history.

Abstract
The paper looks at the apparent roles and functions of women, their impact upon other characters and whether or not their roles should have been different and, if so, how they should have been different. In the final analysis, the paper concludes that Shakespeare accurately captures the gender divisions of the age but also fails to highlight the central contribution of Henry IV's first wife, Mary de Bohun, in the establishment of this man as a powerful king over a flourishing empire.

From the Paper
"The following paper will look at the treatment of women in Shakespeare's, King Henry the IV, Part I. Specifically, the paper will look at the apparent roles and functions of women, their impact upon other characters (to the extent this can be divined), and whether or not their roles should have been different and, if so, how they should have been different. In the final analysis, Shakespeare accurately captures the gender divisions of the age but also fails to highlight the central contribution of Henry IV's first wife, Mary de Bohun, in the establishment of this man as a..."

Tags:henry, iv, shakespeare

Abstract
This paper explores the role and character of Falstaff in Shakespeare's play "Henry IV". The paper acknowledges Falstaff's role as comic relief and his part in Prince Harry's life. This friendship is considered in the paper as well. Several opinions of Falstaff from noted Shakespeare experts are presented along with the writer's view of this character. The paper concludes by stating Falstaff was a necessary figure in the play because he was the only character with whom Prince Harry spoke candidly and often truthfully.

From the Paper
"Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character is in sharp contrast with the nobility which will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes King, and seems to be quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways, he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is quite candid concerning his own self interest. It is not that he does not lie. He does, in the last scene of Act II, when he tells about how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize, "All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the robbers who fell on them as a practical joke, and they all fled immediately. As Falstaff tells the tale and answers questions the lies become more and more exaggerated."

Tags:Falstaff, Henry, IV, comic, relief, William, Shakespeare

Abstract
This paper examines William Shakespeare's plays, "Henry IV, Parts I and II", and, in particular, looks at how Henry misjudges his son and cannot see that Hal, who is not guilty of usurpation and regicide, will be able to unite the now divided kingdom. It shows how Henry's faults and strengths cause him to symbolically reflect the struggle for progress, represented by the bridge between the corruption of England during Richard II's reign and the unity of Henry V's kingdom. It also explores how, after the "struggle" ceases and Henry IV dies, Prince Hal becomes King Henry V ,and the previously divided nation progresses by integration.

From the Paper
"Hal's adoption of the commoners is best described by the Duke of Warwick when he says: "The Prince but studies his companions, / Like a strange tongue to gain the language" (Pt. II, IV, iv, 76-78.) Hal is like a growing tree basking in the sun, Henry IV is the gardener who planted Hal's seed, and the commoners form one of Hal's developing branches. By growing into a man "of all humors," (Pt. I, II, iv, 89) Hal is becoming his entire nation in an individual form, which is symbolically what a king is. Hal has studied the commoners well and is able to both talk and think like them, as portrayed in Hal's witty exchanges with Falstaff. Hal's desire to adapt to the needs of the various peoples of his country foreshadows the harmony that will dominate England when he is king."

Tags:england, monarchy, richard, ii, kingdom

Abstract
This paper presents a character analysis of Henry and Hal, two of the main characters in Shakespeare's play, "King Henry IV", and shows how Shakespeare, by comparing and contrasting these two characters, was able to display the attitudes of both the nobility and the commoners and foreshadow Hal's ability to become a stable, successful ruler.

From the Paper
"Hal's feelings towards his father reflect the feelings of the commoners towards the king. Hal's soliloquy, "I know you all..." (I, ii 183-205) reveals Hal's moral awareness and scorn towards the character he has used to disguise his true frustration with the standards that the king has disgraced. A noble and virtuous young man deliberately masquerading as a dissolute prodigal, Hal is not likely to overlook the deep moral blemishes in his father nor the hypocrisy of Henry IV's assumption of rightful kingship. However, as the King's subject and heir, Hal is denied all means of expressing his contempt for the dishonorable means by which Henry IV has maintained and stolen power. By showing contempt for the king, Hal would be following the example of Henry IV's disloyal behavior towards Richard II, and siding with the rebels who now challenge Henry IV's fitness to rule."

Tags:overthrew, richard, ii, stability, nation, scorn, prodigal, son, dishonorable, stolen, maintained, power