My Lord of Surrey, why look you so sad? An enjoyable essay to read. must we not? More than I have said, loving countrymen. Yes, definitely! As the audience, we know already that King Richard III (by Shakespeare’s terms) is not a squeamish, or holy man–he will do whatever he needs to do in order to secure his plan will come to fruition. In this light, this soliloquy can be viewed as Richard parroting the ugly and abusive taunts he has endured for years. Nice to read an essay that clearly explains Shakespeare. live, and flourish! At this point, according to the play, it is important to note that Henry Tudor had been preparing for battle against King Richard III ever since he was a boy, when King Henry VI told him that he would be the new hope for England. KING RICHARD III Why, Buckingham, I say, I would be king, BUCKINGHAM Why, so you are, my thrice renowned liege. Characters struggle to make sense of Richard’s tyranny, which seems so deeply inhuman, and in their attempts to understand his thinking rely on references to pursuit and ferocity from the animal world – bloodthirsty wolves, eagles and kites – for explanation. Richard is today’s perfect victim. Finally, Richard schemed with his ally, the Duke of Buckingham (who later joins Henry’s forces and is killed by King Richard III’s order), and tell all that the late King Edward was immoral and that he and his children were illegitimate. It’s really interesting how Shakespeare portrays him and it makes one wonder if Shakespeare had certain motives for writing him in such a way. It’s hard to believe characters while they are giving speeches because the audience does not know if the orator is being genuine or simply trying to get his people riled up. Like high-rear'd bulwarks, stand before our faces; Richard except, those whom we fight against. Cruelty, in the Machiavellian universe, is to be carefully and sparingly deployed. I like to imagine this play being acted out by the cast of House of Cards. Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. Not shine to-day! Richmond then asks after his stepbrother George Stanley and those who died in battle. England had been in a civil war since King Richard III was an infant and Henry Tudor was yet to be born. Plays Wikimedia CommonsRichard III charges into battle. King Richard III, to further motivate his soldiers bombards them with even more imagery: Let’s whip these stragglers o’er the seas again; The last was I that helped thee to the crown; Dream on, dream on, of bloody deeds and death: Fainting, despair; despairing, yield thy breath! BUCKINGHAM Say on, my loving lord. A black day will it be to somebody. I love how he looks in the film. So, countdown until someone gives us a retelling of Richard III in orange-face?  It is labelled a history in the First Folio, and is usually considered one, but it is sometimes called a tragedy, as in the quarto edition. Richard gives a speech to his soldiers, insulting the enemy as one easily defeated. Don’t even get me started, either! But there is an important distinction to be made here. In contrast, the deformed King Richard III began his career as Richard, Duke of Gloucester and worked his way to King Richard III by firstly, informing Kin… Without the Battle of Bosworth Field, pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony may never have traveled to the New World. What thinkest thou, will our friends prove all true? I agree with the point you make about the power in Richard’s speeches. Richmond (a.k.a . They rushed Richard’s charge and cut it short. If the reader skips the notes, he/she might think a completely different thing about the character and find themselves getting confused in the long run. Then he disdains to shine; for by the book, He should have braved the east an hour ago. Here pitch our tents, even here in Bosworth field. Richard III was a powerful warrior. The imagery Henry presents promotes a clear division between the light of God and his army and the darkness of evil and King Richard III. Think upon Grey, and let thy soul despair! Shakespeare, William. As well as avoiding undue aggression, Machiavelli also advises that leaders need to show consistency in the treatment of their subjects. Who would ever know there are two extreme sides to someone. What? It seems as though land and family are the two most important aspects to their soldiers, therefore both leaders need to mention it so their soldiers are truly motivated and persuaded. A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and run-aways, Richard staggered for a second, still refusing to fall, and terrified that nothing could possibly kill this demon of a man, another soldier thrust his sword up through the base of his skull until it had lodged into his brain. After all, he is the very incarnation of linguistic violence, or, as Shakespeare prophesises: the “G” / Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be” (1.1.39-40). What, do you tremble? Henry, in this instance seems to be the holier of the two, despite the similarity, because he continuously mentions God and being on God’s side, while King Richard III only mentions the saint at the end. But of course, the most obvious manifestation of this thematic concern is in our villain’s famously ‘bunch-backed’ (1.3.245) appearance. that died at Pomfret! Richard the III is perhaps the greatest villain in all of Shakespeare’s plays. That’s a really good point and would make for a great piece in itself. So, yes, Richard was a conniving murderer – there really is no denying that. After this look at the Battle of Bosworth Field, learn more about the mystery behind Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. Thanks. Ultimately, the citizens of London and the Lord Mayor decided to offer Richard the crown. Is it proven by the amount of followers a man may have?