Richard III and the Stability of England
Richard became King of England on July the sixth 1483 after the heir
to the throne was proclaimed illegitimate. Whether this claim was true
or not is questionable. During Richards reign, the stability of
England has been debated. Was he the ruler England needed to end the
'Wars of the Roses' and bring stability back to the English people? Or
did he cause England to be restless and unsettled? Is it a good thing
that Henry Tudor defeated him in the Battle of Bosworth? This essay
will look at the different points, which, under the reign of Richard
III made the country stable or unstable.
England under Richard III was stable in that he had lots of
experience. He had been made ruler of the North of England in 1471 and
had been allowed to Marry Anne due to his loyalty to his brother
Edward IV whilst he was King. He was a loyal supporter even when
Edwards other brother Duke Of Clarence became a traitor and sided with
Edwards enemies. The fact that he had already had experience in ruling
land meant that he knew what he was doing. This helped to maintain
stability. He was successful in putting an end to the Wars of the
Roses because of his ability to appeal to lots of people. He was a
powerful manipulator and he was able to put their minds at ease by
telling them how stable and strong the country was.
Richard also made England stable because of the simple fact that he
was not a minor and Edward V was. If Edward had been crowned England
would have been under turmoil because the choice of people who would
want to help Edward run the country would have caused upset and unrest
amongst them. Ric...
... middle of paper ...
...ellions suggest that England under Richard III was unstable.
The very fact that there were rebellions means that many people were
unhappy with Richard and the way the country was being run. These
influences would have unsettled people who mightn't otherwise question
the way the country was being run.
After explaining both sides of the argument the conclusion is that
England was unstable under the rule of Richard III. Although he had
popularity, he didn't have the loyal aristocratic support he needed to
run the country. Some people thought he was the rightful king but many
others doubted him due to the executions. The majority were just
waiting for Henry Tudor to come along and side with them. He
maintained the country as well as he could but nothing could stop his
enemies plotting together to undermine his authority.
Richard III's Usurpation and His Downfall Richards rule was always unstable due to his unlawful usurpation to the throne and his part as far as the public was concerned in the death of the two princes. As a result right from the start he didn't have the trust or support from his country. As soon as he became King people were already plotting against him. After he was crowned he travelled the country trying to raise support by refusing the generous gifts offered to him by various cities. However unknown to him a rebellion was been planned in the South.
Composers throughout various zeitgeists are linked by different representations of universal human concerns, and their texts simultaneously embody certain values and agendas individual to themselves. An exploration of Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996) allows for a greater understanding of the composer’s respective contexts, along with their intended agendas, through the lens of their own societal values and concerns. The manipulation of Richard III’s persona, whether by authorial adaptation of historical sources related to his character, or through the differing views of Richards motives, are universal concepts, that when studied in relation to the differing time periods, accentuates the context and our understanding of recurrent aspects of the human experience.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
The Loss of the Throne by Richard III There are many views as to whether Richard III lost his throne, or if it was a mainly Tudor advance which secured it. Overall I think that Henry Tudor did not actively gain the throne decisively, in fact Richard III lost it from making key mistakes throughout his reign, and at Bosworth. Richard weakened his grasp on the throne by indulging in a vast plantations policy which gave too much power to Northerners and inevitably made him dependant on these few. The fact that Northerners were given such a huge dependence enraged the South, and rid Richard of many possible backers during a war. Richard had also been so determined to suppress any rebellions and secure Henry Tudors downfall that he spent vast National funds on these ventures.
...historical background set forth in the film, with the broad details of the attempted rebellion propelled by Queen Eleanor and led by Richard and Geoffrey are accurate, as is the attempt by Philip of France to undermine the Angevin Empire to regain the provinces acquired by Henry through his marriage to Eleanor. As depicted in the film, the indecision, faced by Henry II in attempting to determine which son to name as successor resulted from his desire to have the empire that he had created remain intact, rather than dividing the empire between his sons and this, in turn, led to the fracturing of both family and political cohesion, leaving the empire vulnerable to outside forces. Both Richard and John eventually ruled the empire, supported and influenced by their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was released from her Salisbury prison upon the death of King Henry II.
...tect his right to the throne. Ultimately, he stabilized the nation by settling the civil wars, the Wars of Roses, by marrying the apposing York family, to unite the two feuding families, the Yorks and the Lancasters. All together, King Henry VII is a new monarch for displaying all of the required traits.
Whilst Henry VI’s was in rule during the 1450’s, England had many issues and problems that cause such instability in the country. One of the largest factors arguably is the loss of the Hundred Years war between The French and English over France. This in turn caused many problems to occur with links to almost every feud the country faced. Yet some historians argue that Normandy wasn’t the main issue of instability in England instead of other reasons such as instability.
In his article, "Shakespeare 's King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy", Maurice Hunt gives a convincing (dare I say legitimate!) argument for why he believes Shakespeare took a large risk writing and performing his play King Richard III during the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Knowing the challenges Elizabeth faced during her childhood and into her reign because of her father, King Henry VIII 's ever-changing mind whether or not she was a legitimate heir or a bastard, I agree with Hunt in the fact Shakespeare took a huge risk with his performances of Richard III, if in fact she did see the performance which is something I will be touching on later on, but for the sake of the review of his article I will be focusing on his argument based on Elizabeth being present. Hunt also spends a great deal explaining the history of bastardry in the Tudor family so that we can understand why that
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
To explore connections between texts is to heighten understanding of humanity’s progressing values and the underlying relevant themes that continue to engage societies regardless of context. William Shakespeare’s King Richard III (1592) (RIII) and Al Pacino’s docudrama Looking for Richard (1996) (LFR) demonstrate how opinion is created through comparative study, both explore the struggle for power within differing contexts to determine the duplicity of humanity. Ultimately, despite the divergent eras of composition and textual form, these connections expose the relevant social commentaries of their composers, highlighting innately human values, which remain constant.
The content and construction of texts are inexorably influenced by the plethora of social, cultural, and historical factors relative to a composer’s context. Context thus becomes the principle medium for deciphering the complex and often didactic meanings within texts. Through the comparative study of Shakespeare’s historical tragedy King Richard III and Al Pacino’s postmodern docudrama Looking For Richard, both texts explore the various connections explored through the protagonist Richard with respective societal influence affecting their portrayal. Shakespeare’s text strongly conveys a sense of providentialism which was influential by the Tudor monarchy whilst Al Pacino thorough the implement of modern day media portrays these influences to a secular, postmodern audience.
Shakespeare’s plays were grouped into three categories: comedies, tragedies and histories. The histories were those plays based on the lives of English kings. Shakespeare was one of the first writers to write about English history. According to Garber, “before Shakespeare’s time there were few history plays such written in England--- England history was told in verse and prose chronicles (239)”. It’s considered that Richard II is one of the early “historical plays”. The play became so iconic that even Queen Elizabeth said that she was “Richard the second, know ye not that”. Richard II tells the story about a king’s downfall.
Hidden in the shadows, flitting from window to wall to door and beyond, monsters creep into the world and turn it inside-out and upside-down. As can be seen in Richard III by William Shakespeare, the monster exists as a corporeal and analytical creature that has a tendency to hide from the general population. Richard, the Duke of Gloucester, is arguably the most prominent and alluring monster in the book. Despite his deformities—the bent spine, unbalanced shuffle, and shrunken arm—Richard manages to overcome his perceived bodily hindrances by using his mind to play different roles. This suggests that it might not be an unfinished body that makes him monstrous, but rather a duplicitous mind. Richard’s case clarifies the common notion that monsters
"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.