Richard III: Brief study

Thèmes abordés

Richard III, England, Tower of London

Résumé du document

The story starts with a brief period of peace under King Edward IV, a Yorkist, which will soon be disturbed by Richard's thirst for power. The first half of the play shows his climbing rapidly to the success and thus to the throne of England. The end justifies the means, and in order to achieve his goal he uses lies, plots, and manipulation and has his own older brothers killed: first Clarence, and then sick King Edward.

After that, he becomes Lord Protector of England, the temporary regent at the head of the state until the elder of Edward's two sons grow up. But since this is not enough for him, he also has some court noblemen loyal to the princes killed, as well as some powerful relatives to the princes, and finally the two princes themselves in the famous episode of the Princes in the Tower (namely the Tower of London). Richard becomes King Richard III.

Extraits

[...] As regards Anne Neville, the wife of Henry IV's son Edward in the play, she was transformed by Shakespeare to suit his dramatic purpose. Indeed, historically speaking she was not married to Edward, whereas in Act I she follows the coffin of her "father-in-law" (Henry VI was not her father-in-law in reality). In reality she was the daughter of Richard Neville, a nobleman who fought for the Yorkists in the War of the Roses. He had deserted the Yorkist and helped the Lancastrians and Henry IV to secure a throne again, and he was killed by Edward IV. [...]

[...] Richard III explores a theme that Shakespeare later revisited in Hamlet and Macbeth—the idea that the moral righteousness of a political ruler has a direct bearing on the health of the state. A state with a good ruler will tend to flourish (as Denmark does under King Hamlet), while a state with a bad ruler will tend to suffer (as Scotland does under Macbeth). Here Shakespeare conveys the idea that Richard III was not a good king whereas Henry VII who overthrew him was one. [...]

[...] For instance Richard II, Plantagenet was murdered by the Lancastrian Party (and there is a reference to this episode in Act III, scene 3). Then let's consider young Elizabeth. She was Edward IV's wife and thus Richard III's sister-in-law. Shakespeare insists on Richard's hatred against her. This can be explained by the fact that she was a commoner and that she had used her position at court to favour some of her relations. For Richard III and many other members of the court, she was too ambitious. This is present in the play and it indeed corresponds to historical reality. [...]

[...] So for dramatic purposes Shakespeare describes her as totally devoted to the Lancastrians. If we consider the episode of the princes in the Tower, we can realize that Shakespeare gives his own version of what took place in real history. Indeed, nobody knows what happened to the princes in the Tower of London after that Richard III sent them there. It is possible that he had them killed, but this is not a true fact. To conclude, Richard III is a historical play in which Shakespeare underlined many historical events or figures but also adapted some of them. [...]

[...] What is relevant to mention is that Richard III was the last King to reign during the War of the Roses. After him came the Dynasty of the Tudors with Henry VII whose wedding to Elizabeth unified the houses of York and Lancaster. Secondly, Richard was indeed Duke of Gloucester before becoming Richard III. He is presented as a murderer in the play and in reality he was one because he indeed killed the King Henry VI (from the House of Lancaster), in 1471 in the battle of Tucksbury, moreover he killed the prince Edward, and furthermore he had the 2 sons of Edward IV killed. [...]