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. He eventually was weakening the nations funding in huge amounts. Richard had made large mistakes in his previous years, including when he offered the Duke of Brittany a whole legion of British Archers in return for Henry as a prisoner. This event backfired when Henry fled to France after hearing of the plot, he then revealed this offer to the King of France, which enraged him, as the British were cooperating with the Bretons. The King of France gave Henry huge support, including financial backing, and military backing so that he could overthrow Richard III. It is certain that lacking this support Henry Tudors attempted revolt would have been suppressed. 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. Richard knew that his popularity had been diminished and was
The Seige of 1216 and Dover Castle "THE SIEGE OF 1216 BROUGHT ABOUT LITTLE REAL CHANGE TO DOVER CASTLE.
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.
Anne is quite like a modern woman in the way that if a man tells her
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
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
This quote by William the Conqueror pretty much describes his whole philosophy: “Life yields only to be conqueror. Never accept what can be gained by giving in.” William the Conqueror is best remembered for the fact that he ruled over England and Normandy for many years and had won several battles against several armies. He also is known for the fact that he won the Battle of Hastings against Harold Godwinson after William’s uncle handed the throne to him. William’s career as a leader actually began at an early age. (Bio.com)
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)
...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.
King Henry II died leaving the throne to his son Phillip who immediately freed his mother, Queen Eleanor, from semi incarceration. Once free, she took over the throne and ruled while King Richard left, against his mother’s wish, to the third
The Tudors consisted of five kings and queens as well as Lady Jane Grey. The family line began when King Henry V passed away and his wife later on remarried a man named Owen Tudor. The Tudors were known as the most powerful, feared, and inspirational line of people to have lived during their time
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.