Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Hi...can anyone explain to me why out of all the writings of
Shakespeare, Richard III is the only one that is taken as fact.
Surely it can't be all down to Tudor propaganda?
Why isn't Richard II taken the same way, after all he was
deposed
as King and nobody has anything bad to say about Henry.
Regards
Beth

Beth poses an interesting question. Perhaps it has something to
do with the Princes in the Tower. The image of the wicked uncle and
the helpless children must conjure up some archtype memories - much
like the Hanzel and Gretel fairytale, except there it is a wicked
stepmother. Perhaps you can do away with an adult with impunity but
when children are involved it makes the perpetrator twice as evil.
Then again, there is something in us that "loves" a villain -
maybe it is a way of exorcizing the devils within...

Janet




--- In @y..., ozsomerset <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi...can anyone explain to me why out of all the writings of
> Shakespeare, Richard III is the only one that is taken as fact.
> Surely it can't be all down to Tudor propaganda?
> Why isn't Richard II taken the same way, after all he was
> deposed
> as King and nobody has anything bad to say about Henry.
> Regards
> Beth

Actually, the popular view of the War of the Roses has always been the Shakespearean version. Shakespeare's history plays have all been taken more-or-less as gospel, except in scholarly discussion. Primary school textbooks up until the last half century or so, strongly reflected Shakespeare's interpretation. And popular history writers trying to bring an accurate historical viewpoint have had to work hard at dismantling the Shakespearean mythos.

The crucial point is that only in the case of Richard III has anyone (ie Us) bothered to make outspoken public complaint about it.

Regards,

John Hartwell

jjhartwell13/04/2002 09:43no_reply@yahoogroups.com

> The crucial point is that only in the case of Richard III has anyone (ie Us)
> bothered to make outspoken public complaint about it
I suspect this is not just because of the Tudor myth that Shakespeare's play
encapsulates so brilliantly, but the other figures he takes to task are not
given such a hatchet job as Richard. The only other time Shakespeare did
this was with Macbeth, and I have seen little evidence of people asking for
justice for this likeable and able man!
Also, we like to think of Henry V as a hero, and ignore all his bad points,
of which there were many. The legend of Prince Hal and Falstaff, which is
what Henry IV is really about, is also a brilliant piece of fiction that we
all warm too, especially, as is also the case in Richard 2, when the
language is so rich and beautiful. Henry VI tries to explain a very
complicated period of history in view of the Tudor myth that leads to
Richard 3 and Henry Tudor "saving England". It doesn't contain much in the
way of great poetry (Henry VI's speech at Towton, and Gloucester's that pre
empts the opening of R3 apart), and squeezes the events of almost fifty
years into 9 hours. Drama has always played fast and loose with history, and
Shakespeare was the man who taught everyone how to do this well. Nowadays a
majority of people believe what they see at the movies called "history" is
fact. The same way that last year a man coming out of a brilliant production
of the Henry VI and Richard 3 cycle was heard to ask the usher if this had
actually taken place. "Oh Yes," she replied, "It's history." This is of
course a tragedy for history, but a major bonus for drama.
Paul

Interestingly, there are quite a few Scots who are rather vociferous
on the subject of Macbeth. Firstly, Shakespeare doesn't even make
him part of his "histories" (there he is in tragedies between his
fictional Romeo and Juliet and his fictional Titus Andronicus) and
the hatchet job on him as far as history goes is just as bad.

Firstly, in a terribly unstable period of Scottish history, Macbeth's
reign was quite long (about 13 years). Duncan was regarded as a
really violent and unpleasant King and Macbeth was a relief to his
people. Interestingly, Macbeth was the ONLY Scottish King to ever
make a pilgramage to Roome, which isn't praise of his piety, as much
as an indication as to just how comparatively stable the realm was
when he took over that he felt able to leave for up to a year to
accomplish this, and still have a Kingdom to return to when he got
back (some Scottish Kings couldn't even go on holiday without their
Kingdom becoming impossibly unstable).

However, his portrayal by Shakespeare is far more sympathetic than
his portrayal of Richard III. Macbeth is portrayed as an originally
decent and brave man who is persuaded against his better judgement
into his evil deeds and who is steadily eaten alive by remorse, as
though he has maggots in his guts. He's quite a sympatheic character
for the bad guy. In contrast, Richard III is portrayed as evil
personified, who delights in that evil and who brings the audience
along with him as co-conspirators (a particularly brilliant dramatic
touch which, it has to be admitted does work well - it's been reused
often enough, such as in House of Cards) and whose conscience only
briefly troubles him, mainly at night.

Jackie

jpearcey06/05/2002 19:09no_reply@yahoogroups.com

> Interestingly, there are quite a few Scots who are rather vociferous
> on the subject of Macbeth.
I know this only too well, and have often wondered why more don't come out
of the woodwork in his defence.

>Firstly, Shakespeare doesn't even make
> him part of his "histories" (there he is in tragedies between his
> fictional Romeo and Juliet and his fictional Titus Andronicus) and
> the hatchet job on him as far as history goes is just as bad.

To be fair, so is Richard III called a tragedy rather than History, so he
may well have known the difference in private (my own little theory anyway)

> Firstly, in a terribly unstable period of Scottish history, Macbeth's
> reign was quite long (about 13 years).

17 actually from 1040 to 1057

>Duncan was regarded as a really violent and unpleasant King and Macbeth was a
relief to his people.

Duncan being killed in battle, at Burghead in Moray, much to the relief of
the majority of Scots at the time. Nothing could be further from the truth
than Shakepeare's account of the demise of Duncan.

>Interestingly, Macbeth was the ONLY Scottish King to ever
> make a pilgramage to Roome, which isn't praise of his piety, as much
> as an indication as to just how comparatively stable the realm was
> when he took over that he felt able to leave for up to a year to
> accomplish this

Macbeth actually created the stability in the kingdom that allowed him to go
to Rome in 1050, a visit that meant him out of his kingdom for two years.
When he returned as you said, the kingdom was still at peace. A remarable
achievement for somebody later accused of being a tyrant and a regicidal
monster!

> However, his portrayal by Shakespeare is far more sympathetic than
> his portrayal of Richard III.

I have to totally diagree here. The arc of Richard III has Richard gleefully
enjoying the ease of his rise to the throne with the audience, then
wondering suddenly why it no longer works after his coronation. The
soliloquy on the night before Bosworth is a truly moving moment, as is his
speech to his army incredibly inspiring, and also accurate ('this scum of
Bretons' for example).

>Macbeth is portrayed as an originally
> decent and brave man who is persuaded against his better judgement
> into his evil deeds and who is steadily eaten alive by remorse, as
> though he has maggots in his guts. He's quite a sympatheic character
> for the bad guy.

Or else an easy to persuade, essentially evil man, who sinks into infamy
under the influence of the witches and his ambitious wife.

>In contrast, Richard III is portrayed as evil
> personified, who delights in that evil and who brings the audience
> along with him as co-conspirators (a particularly brilliant dramatic
> touch which, it has to be admitted does work well - it's been reused
> often enough, such as in House of Cards) and whose conscience only
> briefly troubles him, mainly at night.

see above!
I have always thought that Shakespeare actually based Macbeth's character on
Malcolm III, the king who followed Macbeth, and was a truly nasty piece of
work, or on Edward the Confessor, also in reality, the opposite of his
legendary goodness and saintliness.
Much in the same way that I think there is a bit of the real Buckingham in
the character of Richard, as drawn by the Bard, particularly the long time
plan to get the throne and revenge himself on the House of York.

Whereas my proposal for a film about Macbeth was turned down by the BBC a
few years ago, C4 made a Tony Robinson hosted documentary (yes THAT Tony
Robinson aka Baldrick) which told some of the truth, but imo, did it in a
rather dull and off hand manner.
Perhaps my proposal for a Richard documentary will get turned down by the
Beeb and picked up by Lily Savage soon<g>!
Paul

Well I never was. My first reaction, o seeing Olivier's film, first time I'd seen that version was, he wasn't like that Mum! And I laughed a lot watching it.
Richard Liveth Yet


On 16 Feb 2017, at 18:06, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

A sore subject I know. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but don't you think his Richard III is more than a bit of his idea of a joke? We are all trained to take him so seriously.

Didn't you get a sense of "OK, HERE'S RICHARD!" Is the Bard laughing Thomas Moore?

On Feb 16, 2017 4:47 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:
 

Well I never was. My first reaction, o seeing Olivier's film, first time I'd seen that version was, he wasn't like that Mum! And I laughed a lot watching it.
Richard Liveth Yet


On 16 Feb 2017, at 18:06, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

A sore subject I know. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but don't you think his Richard III is more than a bit of his idea of a joke?  We are all trained to take him so seriously. 

When I first saw Shakespeare's Richard III, I never thought this was history. It was fscinating and funny.
But no figures of flesh and blood in it. May be because I had never heard of the historical Richard before
it was satire for me, and a very good one too .And in my opinion that appllies to More's history as well.