Richard II: His Dramatic Downfall Essay

These traits that Richard displayed were not befitting to a king and a man who was suppose to lead. Rather than look out for the

Richard, the main character of the Shakespeare’s play, Richard III is portrayed as socially destructive and politically over-ambitious. His destructive potential is depicted by the way he relates with the other protagonists in the play and also by what he confesses as his intentions.

William Shakespeare’s Richard III is a historical play that focuses on one of his most famous and complex villainous characters. Richard III or The Duke of Gloucester, who eventually becomes king, is ambitious, bitter, ugly and deformed. He manipulates and murders his way to the throne and sets the tone for the whole play with his very first speech, which is the opening of the play.

Richard I reigned over England during the Middle Ages from 1189 to 1199 with great bravery and immense courage. Richard was born as the third legitimate son of King Henry II of England and never assumed that he would ever ascend to become the king. After leading his country in the Third Crusade, he gained the nicknames “the lionhearted” and “the absent king.” Through many heroic deeds while away at war, he deserved the nickname of “The Lionhearted” the most.

    According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel.  This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne.  The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants.  By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.

Ambition is an earnest desire for achievement. Both texts are self reflexive and emphasise Richard’s obsessive ambition, desire and longing for the throne. Each Richard strives towards capturing the throne regardless of consequences and bloodshed. Richard is depicted in both texts as an ambitious character who strives to gain power and independence through deception and self confessed villainy. ‘Since I cannot prove a lover. . . I am determined to prove a villain’ This obsession which drives Richard to commit horrific evils to gain and then protect his claim to the throne. His ambition, power and evil blinds him and inevitably is responsible for his downfall in both of the texts. A connection is formed between Looking for Richard and King Richard III in the final scenes Al Pacino’s interpretation and ‘Hollywood’ background influences an ending which can be interpreted as portraying Richmond as a coward. Elizabethan audiences

* Shakespeare shows the journey in Richard III of Richard himself on his dark quest to becoming king by both using his literary skills and performance to attain what he wants, ultimately being power.

For the Elizabethan audience of Shakespeare’s plays, power was given by God. Power and associated wealth was a birthright and you got what was given to you. It was understood that a hierarchy was established by God. Richard, in his quest for the throne, challenged God as the throne was not rightfully his, as his two nephews and his brothers were still alive. From the theo-centric worldview that the Elizabethan society would have held, Richard never had a chance because he was a mere man challenging God. Richard is closely aligned to the fallen angel and the devil, being called ‘hellish’, a ‘cacodemon’, a ‘foul devil’ by himself, Margaret and Anne respectively. The use of such words emphasise his direct attack on God by choosing to be evil.

Richard’s reign as a king is certainly authentic; he has the power, appearance, and air of a true king. Richard has no problem going through the ceremonial motions and exercising his Divine Rite over his subjects. Though used haphazardly, Richard’s power is undeniable—he can cease a heated battle by the mere drop of his gage, banish with the “breath” of a word, he can “rent” out England’s lands and still be praised by “flatters;” all because he was supposedly chosen by God. However, once his power is challenged, its evident he is only authentic by virtue of being king; there are

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

Richard II was a play that was written by William Shakespeare in his earlier days (1398). This particular play is considered to be his 1st in his history of the tetralogy, which is a series of four games. In this particular piece of literature the author points out several different factors; however, the most relevant factors are in regards to kingship and the role of authority figures and how these characters intertwined within our perception of the way we operate as a community or in this case in England. My understanding of this play is that you have those within life that are all talk and those that are doers such as leaders. The literacy contributes to the present moments in history such as this past election of Donald Trump our new profound

In Shakespeare’s history play Richard II, King Richard II’s relationship with God can be explored throughout the play as he gives up his crown. Richard II is easily seen as weak, making some think that he is not fit for the role of king. He does not listen to his advisors and takes money from the nobles. These actions lead Henry Bolingbroke to take the crown. Richard II does not put up much of a fight as he willingly hands the crown over to Bolingbroke, but he does prolong the process as he dramatically hands his crown and scepter over. Richard II even speaks out about his power that was given to him:

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he

Political power does not come from an army, or a full treasury. Instead, it comes from the subjects, or the people. If the people like a ruler, or leader, it gives them power to act, largely, however they please, but, if the ruler is not well liked, not only does the ruler lose the ability to act, even within the law, but they are much more likely to lose their throne. Throughout Richard II political staging is a means to obtain power, both successfully, and unsuccessfully. In doing so, it reveals the identity of the characters and how they view the world and their place in it. It also demonstrates the problem that power presents, and how it can be hard to wear a political mask, and retain something that is fundamentally individual.

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 in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.