5 Answers | Add Yours
Richard is a wonderful character in a play. As a character, I am intrigued. He is by far the most interesting chareacter in the play. We should not confuse the character with the real man, They are entirely two different people. Shakespeare was a playwright, not a historian.
Shakespeare may or may not have known the turth but if he did, he was wise enough to keep it to himself. The Tutors had recently taken the throne ending the War of the Roses. The truth may not have been kind to them in this situation.
There is no historical evidence that Richard killed Henry VI but dramatically for Shakespeare, it helped to establish Richard's character.
The wonderful thing about Richard is that he can be very charming. One only has to read his meeting with Lady Anne to see this. He is literally a silver tongued devil.
In Shakespeare, no character is all black or all white but shades of each. They are complex human beings struggling with life and survival and sometimes they do horrible things.
Shakepeare was a playwright and wrote for actors creating wonderful characters for actors to play.
Although Shakespeare definitely accentuated the most evil characteristics of the transformation of Richard III from hero and benefactor to an evil murderer blind with ambition, the truth is that the actual historical facts are just as crude as the play. Hence, what one actually feels is a common man's reaction to a rather sad and awful period in British history and certainly it can bring one to repulsion rather than intrigue.
There is no historical evidence that Richard killed anybody! Except in Medievil warfare where, it was a case of kill, or be killed!
The character of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, victor over Richard111, at Bosworth Field is absolute rubbish!
During the battle, where Richard fought valiantly, Richmond shivered in terror in his tent, puking and wretching in fear, afraid the Richard would sweep through his camp and kill him!
Actually herappleness, the many characteristics Shakespeare uses to portray Richard III, have been proved wrong by many historical critics. Richard III did not in fact murder the King Henry V and his Son Edward, he wasn't actuallyy deformed but had just a slightly withered arm, there are no historical evidence proving that he had poisned his Wife Anne, and he did not actually provide any rumour to the one that caused clarence's death. So therefore they were just fabrications placed on Richard III by Shakespeare as the playwrighter needed to cater a tudor audience. This is understandable as the Monarch in Shakespeare's period were descendents of Edmund-King Henry VI. Infact Shakespeare has also chosen some rather perculiar characters, as Queen Margeret, that ,in the play, roamed around cursing Richard, was infact long dead during the actual period the particular scenes were set in. However, as asking in this Question, it is understandale that one might feel repulsed towards Richard III, but only looking at the play.
We’ve answered 319,633 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question