Richard III is the one that is responsible for the death of the princes in the tower. There is said to not be any evidence for the argument that Richard III killed the princes. There are many pieces of evidence that show that Richard III might have murdered the princes, and there are many reasons why he killed them. There has been some information since the time the princes had disappeared. They had disappeared while they lived in tower, and Richard said he had no explanation of what happened to the princes. It is highly unlikely for any third party to have access to the tower, so they could not kill the princes without the king’s knowledge. Richard III was the only one with the authority to dispose of the princes. Some people say that there …show more content…
is no evidence that shows the princes were murdered, but because it is long after the said murder took place, that is not a good reason to show that the princes were not murdered. Richard III had many powerful and compelling motives to make him want to kill the princes.
He was insecure of his throne. Richard III was not a popular king. Richard III viewed the princes as a danger, which is why the princes were kept in a strict confinement, so it would be hard to find them Richard III was a ruthless person, as his previous tyrannical acts, like Hastings’ and Rivers’ executions, showed that he used violence to end things. The princes were murdered in strict secrecy. Not very many people knew where it was, as Richard allowed only certain people who would not say anything about the murder of the princes. He made sure that these people would not tell anyone about was has been happening in the tower where the princes were kept. After the murder of the princes, Richard III was different, and he did not say anything about the murder. He was said to have behavior like a person that had a guilty conscious. Richard’s personal prayer that is found in the Book of Hours is dedicated to St Julian, a man who killed his parents and was forgiven by God. Richard also wanted 100 priests to offer masses so his soul could be …show more content…
saved. Sir Thomas More “heard by credible report by such as were secret with [Richard’s] chamberers.” By the time Dominic Mancini had written his [thing], the rumor that Richard III killed the princes had reached France, and Mancini wrote that “the Duke of Gloucester… shortly after suppressed Edward’s children.” Philippe de Commines sates in his memoirs that Kind Richard, “arranged the death of his two nephews.” He also says Louis XI believes that Richard III was responsible for putting to death “the two sons of his brother King Edward” and he was “extremely cruel and evil.” Louis XI died shortly after, but had sent a letter to Richard III that he would help him in some way, but soon changed after because some of the spies of Louis XI heard the same sort of rumors as Mancini. Robert Fabyan said in his [] “it was common fame that King Richard had with in the Tower put unto secret death the two sons of his brother Edward IV.” According to John Rous, the princes in the tower were dead by the time that Richard was usurped.
He said, “he ascended the throne of the slaughtered children, whose protector he was himself.” The usurpation of Richard III happened at the end of July, which implies that the princes were dead before that happened. People knew and talked about the princes in the tower, but after the suspected murder, there was no talk about them whatsoever. At a place called Sheriff Hutton, there were many royal children, including the four younger daughters of Edward IV Many people knew about it, so if the princes were at Sheriff Hutton, then people would know about
it. It is very unlikely that Richard III did not kill his nephews, there also is a possibility that the princes died of natural causes, as in not by being murdered. In 1674, while people were working to remove the tower, they found a chest, located near some stairs in the tower, with skeletons inside of it. The skeletons were arranged in a way where that taller one was on his back, with the smaller one on top, face down. They quickly assumed that these skeletons belonged to the two princes in the tower. One of the workmen said that he saw “the ones of those two princes who were foully murdered by Richard III.” It is most likely for these two skeletons to be the two princes’ skeletons. Some experts thought in the 1970s that the tower was Roman, but the skeletons were found with “rag and velvet,” and there was not material like velvet around during the age of the Romans. Velvet was also rare and expensive, so they must be well-to-do and died after the fifteenth century. There were no other well-to-do children that disappeared during the time the two princes were, so it is extremely likely for the skeletons to be the princes in the tower. The findings were sent to King Charles II, and he eventually ordered the royal surgeon to examine the bones. They decided that the bones were of the two princes in the tower. The bones can be seen today, as they are in Westminster Abbey. In the beginning of the twentieth century, when there were more ways to examine things, and when technology was more advanced, the bones were examined again. They determined the height of the children and how they were built and they could determine the approximate age by the teeth, but they could not determine the gender or the age of the bones. There have been many experts that have analyzed the bones of the that are suspected to be of the princes in the tower. All their findings have made it clear that the princes did not die of natural causes, but were killed by someone. Because there were no other sets of two royal children that disappeared in that tower after 1483 but before 1674. Although the medical evidence does not show how or who the princes were killed by. It is safe to say that Richard III is the only person who would be responsible for killing the two princes in the tower. [1150]
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.
Richards usurpation of the throne was not the only reason why people did not like or trust him however. Richard, Duke of Gloucester arrested Hastings on a false charge of treason on the 13th June 1483 and had him beheaded without trial (beheading for treason was common for nobility). This alarmed other nobles who were shocked at the speed which Richard was prepared to dispatch people who he though could possible oppose him. Hastings was a well liked noble who had got on incredibly well with Richards brother Edward. This infuriated many nobles as the execution without trial was again unjust.
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.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
Richard did not manage to recover from the usurpation of Edward and after allegedly murdering the two Princes in the tower his reputation had fallen greatly. He had lost a lot of respect from nobles and from the populus. Killing the Princes could be seen as one of the major factors of his downfall. It was common place in monarchical families to have brothers and sisters "put out of the picture", but even in these primitive times, the murder of innocent children was a taboo.
“I am determined to prove a villain / and hate the idle pleasures of these days. / Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, / by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams.” Richard III, the evil Duke of Gloucester, is fighting a bloody road to the crown in Shakespeare's dramatic play. Stopped by nothing and with brilliant intelligence, Richard fights his way to the king’s position, clothing his villany with “old odd ends stolen out of holy writ.” With no one to fully trust, Richard breaks many hearts by killing all people in his way, and becomes the unstoppable villain. He hides behind a shield of kindness and care, but when he is alone, his real soul comes alive. Sending murderers, or killing people himself, he has no mercy. Manipulating Lady Anne to marry him and promising Buckingham rewards for his deeds, he knows what he is doing, and won’t stop until the crown lies at his feet.
to behave in the same way as King Richard, and since he is acting this way, the
...e was also writing in Tudor England and seemed to have openly dislike Richard III. In other portions of his writing he describes Richard as an unattractive deformed man who was born with a full set of teeth. He writes that he had a “sour countenance , which seemed to savour of mischief, and utter evidently craft and deceit.”
... bloody pathway to kingship. Filled with scorn against a society that rejects him and nature that curses him with a weakened body, Richard decides to take revenge and ultimately declares a war between himself and the world. By achieving goals for the mere sake of self-advancement, a self-made hero, an ambitious king, and an atrocious villain were created. Richard assumes that love forms a bond which men can break, but fear is supported by the dread of ever-present pain (Machiavelli ch. XXIV); thus, for true success the hero must be a villain too. Richard III becomes one of literature’s most recognized anti-heroes under the hands of Shakespeare as he has no objective or thought to take up any other profession than the art of hatred; however, ironically being a representative of a heroic ruler sent by God, he is made to commit murder to redeem society of their sins.
This contributes to a very villainous role. Richard begins his journey to the throne. He manipulates Lady Anne. into marrying him, even though she knows that he murdered her first. husband.
Shakespeare Richard III was a traitor, a murderer, a tyrant, and a hypocrite. The leading characteristics of his mind are scorn, sarcasm, and an overwhelming contempt. It appears that the contempt for his victims rather than active hatred or cruelty was the motive for murdering them. Upon meeting him he sounds the keynote to his whole character. " I, that am curtailed of this proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deform'd, unfinish'd sent before my time Into this word scarce half made up"( 1.1.20-23)
He breeds anger in Clarence and the populace, not of himself, but of Edward and the rightful heirs. "We are not safe, Clarence, we are not safe,"3 he exclaims as his brother is hauled away to the tower. He preys on the "hateful luxury And bestial appetite"4 of the citizenry, catapulting himself to the thrown over a heap of bodies: deaths that hang on his head. But, it is Richard's attitude that his end goal of the crown justifies the murderous means that so closely links ...
Edward V and his brother so that he could be next in line for the crown. But that is not true for Richard really didn’t do it.
In the year 1066, England was challenged by the fact that it had lost its king, Edward the Confessor. England found itself in a seriously divided state after Edward's death, a division that included at least a few large districts that were controlled by politically powerful earls like Earl Howard who would quickly seek to take his throne (Baugh, 1959, p. 129). Causing even greater problems was the fact that, when he left this world, he also left it without bringing an heir to the English throne or clearly identifying who should succeed him. Although some historians suggest that this was a serious oversight on the part of Edward, still others maintain that it confirms the notion that he had promised the throne to his cousin, William, the Duke of Normandy.
"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.