This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Can someone please write a description of what actually happens in the play? At the moment, all that there is at the top of the page is a lengthy explanation of why Shakespeare got the history wrong and how Richard III really was a good king - interesting, but on the play's page I'd like to know what happens in the play. —Mary X
Can someone please write a description of what actually happens in the play? At the moment, all that there is at the top of the page is a lengthy explanation of why Shakespeare got the history wrong and how Richard III really was a good king - interesting, but on the play's page I'd like to know what happens in the play. —Mary X
I hate to get all other wiki here, but the intro on this is just ridiculous. We know from the Wars of the Roses — where he fought on the side of his brother Edward, the father of the princes in the tower — that he was a capable military leader. We know from his time pretty much running the north as the Duke of Gloucester that he was a competent administrator. And there's plenty of evidence that the merchant class in York liked him and his policies.
But "beloved of the people"? No evidence whatsoever, and there IS evidence to suggest that his heavy handedness didn't go over well with ordinary people. (The first mention of the nickname "Richard Crookback" is contemporary, saying that commoners in York called him this.)
"Better at actually running the country than any king in the last 150 years"? This may well have turned out to be true, but as is Richard reigned for two years, most of which time was spent either consolidating his power or trying to hold onto it, it's a hard claim to make.
And to say that Richard lost the support of the nobility because his son died is simply wrong. Richard was 32 at the time of his death and more than capable of producing another heir. He was known to be a strong military leader, a capable administrator, and had a strong claim to the throne. Henry Tudor, on the other hand, was a complete unknown, had no children, had a very weak claim to the throne — his connection to royalty takes quite the diagram — and was only five years younger than Richard.
Nor was Edward's wife "corrupt." Though the daughter of an Earl, for convoluted reasons not worth going into — IE I don't actually remember what they are — she was technically a commoner, a fact that the nobles greatly resented, especially when Edward gave her relatives titles, influence, and power. At the same time, however, he also gave his younger brother Richard a free hand in the north. (Richard had been loyal to Edward all through the Wars of the Roses.) The result was two separate centers of power — at Court, dominated by the Queen's relatives, and York, Richard's seat. This was all well and good until Edward died unexpectedly with two young sons. Although Edward trusted Richard and his Queen's family, they didn't trust each other, and the past fifty years didn't have too many encouraging precedents for how such situation resolve themselves.
Richard no doubt felt threatened by the power of the Woodvilles and felt his own position was insecure once his brother was dead. So he moved quickly and ruthlessly. The Queen's brother, Earl Rivers, was traveling with Prince Edward from Wales. Having no reason to except any trouble, they had only a small escort. Richard intercepted them and had Rivers and some others of the Queen's relations sent to Pomfret Castle, where he ordered their execution. With the Prince in his custody, Richard proceeded to London. Upon hearing the news, the Queen fled with her youngest son — also named Richard — to sanctuary. But it was no good — Richard ordered the prince removed and lodged with his older brother in the tower.)
Up until this point, everything is well sourced and not really open to debate. Edward IV died unexpectedly; Richard moved swiftly and decisively against the other faction at court, executing some of its most prominent members on trumped up charges, and moved the two young princes to the tower. From there on out, the record becomes murkier. But we do know some things. Namely, that the princes died while in Richard's custody, and that around this time Richard's allies in the nobility inexplicably turned on him.
It's entirely possible that the Duke of Buckingham didn't particularly care about the murder of the princes. He certainly had no problem with the execution of Earl Rivers or anything else Richard did when he seized power. But why, then, should the Duke have suddenly turned on Richard so soon after his great risks in helping him take power had paid off in favor of a long shot nobody like Henry Tudor? The only answer I can think of is that he felt threatened personally threatened — that after seeing the lengths Richard went to eliminate potential threats to his power, he not unreasonably decided that a powerful, ambitious noblemen like himself didn't have much of a future as long as Richard was king. Either way, it doesn't make Richard too good.
Shakespeare's Richard III is certainly slanted against Richard, but the essential portrayal of Richard as a magnificent bastard who overreached himself and in the end alienated his own allies, leading to his downfall can hardly be considered "you fail history forever." Yes, Richard was brave and capable. He was also utterly ruthless in protecting his own interests, to the point of betraying the dying wishes of the brother he'd been loyal to all his life, declaring him a bigamist and his children illegitimate, and ordering the deaths of his friends and in-laws. And that's without even considering the ultimate fate of the princes.
You can make Richard a tragic character. You might even be able to make him a sympathetic one. But you'll never be able to make a nice guy out of him, no matter how hard you try.
Alright, sorry for the ramble. Thought I'd put something on the discussion page before I start editing the actual intro. I'll also get some of what actually happens in the play.
