Part of a bigger story. (King Richard II - William Shakespeare)

Member Name: Bryn Pearson

Product:	King Richard II - William Shakespeare
Date:	28/08/01 (80 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: the plays that folow from it., History

Disadvantages: you need to know the context to make any sense of it.

Richard the second is the first play in a long line - Henry the fourth (parts one and two) Henry the Fifth, Henry the sixth (several parts to this one) and Richard the third all follow from this text. These plays work best if you can read them in order, as each provides a context for the next.

A bit about the history. It is important to note that Richard is descended from William the first, and that he has therefore a strong and legitimate claim to the thrown. After his death, no one has the same claim to rule, and it is as a result of this that the long period of fratching between the houses of York and Lancaster ensues.

In my opinion, the Tudors, (Elizabeth 1's line.) have an even more tenuous claim, but by the time the throne went to them, no one remained who really had much of a good claim at all. I think part of the point of these history plays is to show the chaos pre Tudor and to support the notion that they are a erally good line and encourage ideas that they are meant to rule. Elizabeth was very keen on propoganda and spin!

It is well worth swatting up on the history of the period if you are planning to study these plays.


Richard the second is not a strong or terribly wise King, and when he exiles Henry, (to be Henry the fourth) he sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to his downfall. henry, it turns out, is far more popular with the people than Richard is, and comes back to take over the country (there's a ot more going on, but it's long complicated and needs far too much explaining. If you want the details I'm afraid you will just have to read the play.)

Richard's eventual murder at the hands of Henry's cohorts makes for an interesting comparrison with the death of Thomas Beckett (about whom T.S Eliot wroter "Murder in the Cathedral") In both cases, the king states before witnesses that he wished something could be done about the man who is causing him trouble,
and in both cases, the result is murder. In both cases, the king responds by claiming that murder was the last thing he had wanted and professing to be terribly, terribly upset about it all. I remain cynical.

Richard the second makes a lot more sense if you know that where it's heading is towards "Henry the Fourth". This provides much of the backdrop for the following play, and explains Henry's terrible angst, and his doubts over his right to rule.

In light of the Elizabethan propoganda issue, watch for any statements about what makes a goodruler - there are a lot of suggestions in this text, and I suspect them of being there for political reasons as much as anything else.

Richard the second is not the most exciting of plays - there's a lot of talking, a lot of history, and nothing like as much action as many of shakespeare's plays contain. it is often refelctive, and some of the speeches are powerful. I think it helps if you relate to it as a build up - this is all working towards henry the fifth, which has all the excitement, passion, romance and heroism that you could possibly ask for. It just takes a long time to get there if you go through these other kings first!

Summary: