How different exactly are Richard and Richmond, Grand-Father of Queen Elizabeth? Both men usurped the throne in order to become king. Both men totally disregarded the divine right of kings. These two men both achieved the throne through exactly the same way…and if Shakespeare had portrayed this fact to the Queen, then she would be extremely displeased to say the least. Therefore, Shakespeare had to construe Richard in such a negative light in order to make the crimes of Richmond look justifiable. In focusing upon the crimes of Richard, Shakespeare slowly shifts the light upon Richmond’s crimes, making it seem that the actions of Richard were inevitable, that someone had to perform the heroic act of usurping the throne from such a mad man: ‘For what is he they follow? Truly, gentlemen, A bloody tyrant, and a homicide,’ (V.III.246-247). Throughout this book there is an immense amount of Tudor propaganda. From the beginning Shakespeare is subtle about how he implies Tudor superiority, but towards the end it becomes more obvious, upon when he directly juxtaposes Richmond and Richard, two diametrically opposed characters. Shakespeare’s motivations for making Richard appear to be the man he really wasn’t are that to make Richmond’s actions justifiable, and then, in effect, Queen Elizabeth I certainly benefited from the impression that Richard had been a wicked king.
The Richard III that we, the audience, know, is the Machiavellian tyrant who will manipulate by using murder, and there are many examples provided to show that Richard uses murderous techniques in various ways to remove obstacles from his path. When Shakespeare considered the means by which the audience would regard the Machiavellian side of Richard, it would have been too easy to condemn Richard as a ruthless tyrant with no redeeming features, who slays all who opposes him. But Richard is much more intelligent than this. If he were this way, then there would be no depth to the plot, no depth to Richard. He would be the stereotypical ‘He’s-behind-you’ villain, determined to be dastardly, bent on causing trouble. Yet he isn’t. Richard knows that it would be far too easy for him to be incriminated for murdering such high nobility, and therefore he manipulates other people to carry out his intentions for him, thus rendering him innocuous if accusations fell onto him. His murderous persona proves to be an asset to him when claiming the throne, for he has managed to eradicate all opposition. For the majority of the play, Richard remains cool and calculating, never once striking another himself. Take for example, the death of Clarence. Clarence is a firm obstacle on the path towards kingship for Richard. If Richard were just a ruthless tyrant with no redeeming features, he would simply kill Clarence, full stop. Although Richard may be a ruthless tyrant, he does have one redeeming feature, intelligence. He schemes in such a way that if his plots to murder were to backfire, then Richard would remain blameless, merely an innocent bystander. Therefore, rather than murdering Clarence himself, he sets up a plan, firstly to get Clarence and Edward in deadly hatred:
‘To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other.
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mewed up
About a prophecy which says that ‘G’
Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be,’ (I.I.34-40)
Here Richard is treading a dangerous path, for his plan can easily back fire, as ‘G’ can also represent ‘Gloucester’. Richard has the Sword of Damocles hanging ever closer over his head, he’s playing with fire. But, of course, Richard’s intelligence prevails, and Clarence is jailed by order of King Edward. Now Richard swoops in for the kill, by hiring assassins to perform the dangerous deed for him:
‘But soft, here come my executioners –
How now, my hardy, stout, resolved mates,
Are you now going to dispatch this thing,’ (I.3.339-341)
Richard manipulates the Court of York by eliminating opposition, and remaining innocuous the whole time. The ironic thing is that even though Richard was the causer of all of the deaths, he would still be innocent, for not one life did he take during his ascent to the throne. Although he is the bearer of the responsibilities of all of the deaths, fellow nobility never suspects him.
Richard also bears the burdens of the murders of the Two Princes, Edward, Buckingham, Hastings, Lady Anne, Clarence, and many others. And although the audience are aware of his Machiavellian sides, Shakespeare also intends for the audience to be aware of his virtuous sides, as is shown when the Duchess, Richards mother, states:
‘Thy schooldays frightful, desperate, wild and furious;
Thy prime of manhood, daring, bold, and venturous,’ (IV.IV.170-171)
Daring…bold…venturous. These aren’t the qualities of a ruthless tyrant…these are the qualities of a hero. We can’t assume that Richard is naught but evil, for he could have been a great, virtuous king. He may have manipulated the Court of York by murdering many; he may have used murder to achieve his aims; he may have entirely undermined the divine right of Kings, but he thinks before he acts, and paradoxes the stereotype of the ruthless tyrant.
Richard doesn’t just divest the Court from important nobility; he also succeeds by being aware of the sickness in Court, the lack of unity, and manipulating this sickness, this disarray, which provides him with untold opportunities for ascendancy. He plays on the dysfunctional Court by rather shrewdly exposing the Woodville faction. He knows that with a few well time sentences the rival factions will be easily manipulated and will tear each other apart with little intervention from Richard. King Edward in his last few days attempts to direct his own little play, getting Buckingham, Hastings, Rivers to pretend to be friends, to try and unify the rival faction. . Richard destroys this quaint scene with a single phrase, "Who knows not that the gentle Duke is dead?" (2.1.80). The way in which Richard intervenes and destroys the false unity shows both the fact that Richard is in charge of the play, and that he is a divisive force. He again attempts to expose the faction at Court by implicating the Queen's brother and sons in the death of Clarence. Richard skilfully asks who among them standing there is guilty, "And yet go current from suspicion" (2.1.95). The irony of course is that he is speaking about himself.
Richard is astutely aware that a few well-timed sentences can prove very effective upon when exposing the Woodville faction, or when he chooses to play one off against another, as is shown most convincingly when he states: "And yet go current from suspicion" (2.1.95). One well-placed sentence from Richard arises suspicions from the factions, and all the while Richard remains harmless. One extremely important soliloquy to consider when regarding Richard exposing the Woodville faction is as follows:
‘I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.
The secret mischeifs that I set abroach
I lay unto the grievous charge of others…
…And tell them ‘tis the queen and her allies…
…To be revenged on Rivers, Dorset, Grey
But then I sigh, and with a piece of scripture…
…And seem a saint when most I play the devil,’ (I.III.324-338)
This soliloquy contains so much dramatic irony. Here we have Richard, speaking to the audience, implicating them in his plots. Richard is the stereotypical Shakespearean villain, gradually constructing the plot as he goes along. Richard knows exactly what he’s going to execute. He’s going to stir the pot, expose the Woodville faction, let the families fight between themselves, let the Court of York become even more unstable, and then when they look to him for guidance, he becomes pious and holy, stating its not what God intended, and ‘Thus I clothe my naked villainy with odd old ends stol’n forth of holy writ,’ (I.III.336-337). All Richard has to do is sit back and watch the internal strife – the lack of unity at court provides him with untold opportunities for ascendancy.
What stands out in Richard III is the fact that Richard is still a seductive character, even after all the atrocities he commits. Shakespeare creates in Richard a singular character, a new character that has never been seen on stage before. And the audience finds that, much the way Lady Anne is seduced by Richard, so to is it seduced to find him at times likable, funny, and fascinating. From the very first word of the play, Richard woos the audience as he woos Anne, with the strength of his personality; his wit, his confidence, his bustle. Richard is an excellent actor, making full use of his duplicitous capabilities. With Richard, it is all a series of volt faces, change of direction. He manipulates people with his verbal stratagem, his ‘honey words’. With Clarence, one moment he is normal, vindictive self, and once Clarence appears: ‘Dive, thoughts, down to my soul, here Clarence comes,’ (I.I.41). It’s as if Richard literally changes persona, and he manipulates Clarence with this false, friendly, forthcoming persona, so convincingly that Clarence is utterly convinced Richard has not done one wrong against him: "O do not slander him, for he is kind (1.4.229). He continues, "It cannot be, for he bewept my fortune / And hugged me in his arms, and swore with sobs / That he would labour my delivery (1.4.232-34). When Richard converses with other members in the play, his words and phrases often contain hidden meanings, meanings that are in fact the exact intention, such as shown when Richard says to Clarence: ‘Well, your imprisonment shall not be long. I will deliver you or else lie for you,’ (I.I.114-115). Here Richard is in effect speaking to both the audience and to Clarence. Towards Clarence, he is showing a more compassionate feeling, whilst the audience becomes aware of the double meaning, knowing that he intends to have Clarence killed.
Richard is very aware that wooing Lady Anne will not be an unproblematic task, as Richard murdered her former husband. Yet Richard manages to entice Lady Anne commendably, and it is all about he way he uses verbal stratagem to overcome her bitterness towards him. Every insult that Anne sends towards Richard, every comparison between Richard being quite bestial, Richard undercuts her insults with short, sharp, flattering sentences, as is shown most compellingly when:
Anne: Oh, wonderful, when devils tell the truth!
Richard: More wonderful, when angels are so angry.
Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,
Of these supposed crimes to give me leave
By circumstances but to acquit myself. (I.II.73-77)
Richard seduces her, entices her, not by good looks, but by choosing the right words. He doesn’t think it is a verbal battle, but rather an intellectual game, as is shown when he states: ‘To leave this keen encounter of our wits,’ (I.II.120). You would expect for Richard to be outraged at the barrage of insults that are hurled at him by Anne, but paradoxically he brushes them off with no concern.
Another example upon where Richard uses verbal stratagem is when Richard, a very vocally capable man, runs verbal rings around Rivers, son of Elizabeth:
Rivers: She may, my lord, for –
Richard: She may, lord Rivers, why, who knows not so?…
…What may she not? She may, ay, marry, may she.
Rivers: What, marry, may she?
Richard: What, marry, may she? Marry with a king…
…I wis your grandam had a worser match’ (I.III.91-101)
Here, Richard clearly wins the battle, as he runs rings around Rivers, and this aspect of Richard is actually quite admirable to the audience. Richard’s ability to wholly switch personalities instantaneously is extremely rare and talented, and his qualities to woo anyone with his personality provide him with similar qualities to a superior statesman. As soon as Richard speaks, we are intrinsically drawn to him, wooed by him, and Richard manages to manipulate a large amount of nobility simply by using verbal stratagem and playing his words right.
Richard has a propensity to ‘spin’, to self-publicise, and will go to remarkable lengths to make him look good compared to other people. He will self-publicise even if it means offending his family name and casting rumours about the validity of his mother’s chastity. We can see this when Richard says: ‘Infer the bastardy of Edward’s children/…and when my father was in France…’ (IV.II.23-26). Richard even sometimes self-publicises so cannily, so exaggerated, that it borderlines upon satire, such as when Richard appears in front of the mayor and citizens, after being interrupted during prayer: ‘See where his grace stands, ‘tween two clergymen,’ (III.VII.94). This spin-doctoring is extremely cliché, especially when Richard makes reference to the bible, and religious matters. This is highly ironic, as Richard is not a pious man at all. Richard also uses Buckingham as a flatterer to provide positive impressions of Richard to the rest of the country, such as when Buckingham juxtaposes Richard to the former king, Edward:
‘Ah ha, my lord, this prince is not an Edward.
He is not lulling on a lewd love-bed
But on his knees at meditation…
…But sure I fear we shall not win him to it,’ (III.VII.70-79)
This is all P.R. for Richard. In comparing his false actions to Edward, and in denouncing Edwards actions, this will publicise Richard as a pious, valiant man, and a certainty for future king. Buckingham and Catesby are spinning a web of deceit, a public relations conference for the mayors and citizens…portraying a false Richard. Another tendency of Richard, shown convincingly when asked to be the future king, is to reject the offer, to become the modest, humble man, whilst all the while being aware that they will continue to ask until he ‘relents’. It becomes incredibly cheesey, even unbelievable, when Richard declines and Buckingham continues to beg, stating it would be a crime for someone of his stature, of his type, to not become king:
‘Know, then, it is your fault that you resign,
The supreme seat, the throne majestical,
The sceptred office of your ancestors,
Your state of fortune and your due of birth,
The lineal glory of your royal house,
To the corruption of a blemished stock,’ (III.VII.116-121)
This phrase is loaded with P.R., and Richard spins this web of deceit to make himself look better than all others.
Richard’s propensity to spin is parodied by Shakespeare propensity to spin doctor, to publicise the Queen of the time, Elizabeth I, in the fairest light of all. Such an example of Shakespeare’s proclivity to spin is shown most compellingly when the Ghost of the Princes state to Richmond: ‘Live, and beget a happy race of kings,’ (V.III.160). Shakespeare desired to be in accordance with the Queen of England, and by publicising her ancestors as archetypal heroes, he would do just that. Another example of this would be when the Ghost of Buckingham states to Richmond: ‘God and good angels fight on Richmond’s side,’ (V.III.178). This is such loaded propaganda…Shakespeare is stating that God, the most immense being believed of in those times, is on the side of the Queen’s ancestors. Both Shakespeare and Richard are guilty of spinning lies to please someone, and to make someone appear much more grandiose than they really are.
Richard III is a fine example of Shakespeare taking events out of chronological sequence in order to make Richard’s transgressions seem even more repugnant than they truly are. This is shown extremely convincingly when Shakespeare invokes Margaret of Anjou into the text. Margaret functions on many different levels in Richard III. She has much in common with the chorus in Greek Tragedies, commenting on the current or recent action and expressing her viewpoint in her asides to the audience. She also functions as Nemesis or Fate personified, in that she demands justice and retribution for past wrongs. However, what should be noticed is that Shakespeare is taking Margaret totally out of context. History has it that an actual fact chronologically speaking, when she appears firstly in Act 1, she was actually in exile in Burgundy, and when she appears later on in Act IV, she was actually dead. So, why would Shakespeare merge Margaret into the cast if she were dead at the time? Well, the basis of her appearances is that Margaret is a very powerful stage presence, and Shakespeare uses her as a literary vehicle to accentuate Richard’s crimes, and Shakespeare also involves her as subtly he is conveying to the Tudor monarchs that ostensibly the Lancastrian side is better than the York side. However, even though on the surface it is apparent Margaret is making the York side look dire, the more attentive audience members of the time would be aware she is denouncing both sides, both Lancastrian and York, making both look equally bad. This is shown most compellingly when Margaret states:
‘I had an Edward, till a Richard killed him;
I had a husband, till a Richard killed him.
Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard killed him;
Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard killed him,’ (IV.IV.39-43)
At this pivotal moment the Tudor nobility will be extremely please as she is asserting Richmond’s right to the throne, and yet she is making them comparable to each other. Shakespeare also manipulates history by taking events out of chronological order in other ways, such as the deaths of Clarence and Edward. Shakespeare takes two deaths that historically speaking was quite far apart, and brought them much closer in time. Shakespeare does this to make both deaths look as if one were dependent upon the other, thus implying Richard as a cold-hearted fiend who cares so little of his family that he killed his two brothers within days of each other. This impression would have been suggested to the audience, and they would slowly become aware of the enormity of his crimes. The wooing of Anne is quite often seen as one of the more dastardly crimes for two reasons. Firstly, Richard is condemned by the audience for this act because they are sentient of the fact that Richard will shortly dispose of her, and yet they are impotent to do anything about it. The second reason, however, is that the wooing of Anne takes place, right in front of the coffin of Henry VI, her husband. Of course, here is yet another example of where Shakespeare has manipulated events in time to make Richard the machiavel, by taking the King, who in historical terms was slain 6 years beforehand, and making him witness to the seduction of his wife almost instantaneously after the death of her husband…and thus in effect construing Richard in a negative light. The final major manipulation of history comes during the scene, upon which Richard plots to ‘dispose’ of Anne in replacement for another wife, as is clearly shown when Richard says: ‘Come hither, Catesby. Rumour it abroad That Anne my wife is very grievous sick,’ (IV.II.51-52). Therefore the audience comes to the conclusion that Richard killed Anne in order to remarry…and yet Shakespeare has taken Anne’s death out of historic context, for she really died of natural causes. So we can overall come to the conclusion that Shakespeare took events out of chronological sequence wholly to make Richard’s misconduct a lot more repugnant, although with Margaret he uses her as a literary vehicle to subtly deliver the message that both sides were equally as bad as each other.
Throughout the play, Shakespeare is actually quite subtle about how he portrays his biases towards the Tudor nobility. However, as the play moves on towards the conclusion, Shakespeare loses all subtlety, by palpably juxtaposing the two characters of Richard and Richmond. Richard and Richmond are two diametrically opposed characters in the play, and Shakespeare shows this by having them both on stage at the same time, both standing on either side of the stage. Shakespeare’s intent whilst contrasting the two is that the Queen would be extremely pleased at the depictions of her Grandfather. Shakespeare has no inhibitions when describing Richmond, and goes full out to portray him as the pious, valiant hero that he may have been. This is shown most convincingly when all of the Ghosts of the murdered characters return and state: ‘Good angels guard thy battle/Awake, and win the day/Arm, fight, and conquer/Live and beget a happy race of kings/Thy adversary’s wife doth pray for thee/God and good angels fight on Richmond’s side’ (V.III.141-178). That final quote is such powerful propaganda, as Shakespeare is saying that God, the holiest of beings, is supportive of you, and desires you to usurp the throne. For Elizabeth, there would be nothing more powerful than having God on your side. There are also contrasts in the personalities of Richmond and Richard. Richmond is seen as being caring, gentle, yet a strategist and valiant nobleman. Richmond delivers a really invigorating ‘pep talk’ to his nobleman, stating God is on their side, and often to referring to Richard as ‘tyrant’. Shakespeare also invokes a lot of piety in Richmond, which is shown: ‘God and our good cause fight upon our side/The prayers of holy saints and wronged souls/Then in the name of God,’ (V.III.241-271). There is incredible amounts of emphasise on Richmond’s piety and general worthiness in that soliloquy. And then, we have this pious, noble character juxtaposed by Richard. Richard becomes contrasted with everything that Richmond is. He is made out to be evil, sinister, satanic, deceptive, tyrannical, duplicitous by Shakespeare, and when we compare him to Richmond the audience would gain the impression that it was justifiable for Richmond to usurp the throne, to do exactly as Richard had done, as he is a intrinsically evil man and God would want for him to be taken off the throne. And as the battle continues, we see Richmond fighting nobly in battle, and we see a pathetic, impotent Richard: ‘A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!’ (V.IV.7). Here we see Richard the once-powerful, cool, conscientious leader, totally impotent and helpless…and we see him not worthy of Richmond. Shakespeare intended for this all as both justification of the usurpation of the throne by Richmond, and also as a way of honouring the Queen of the time, by seeing how valiant her Grandfather was, when compared to Richard III.
In all fairness I believe that Shakespeare depiction of Richard III is highly unjust and yet it has shaped the general consensus of Richard up till present day. Yet, Shakespeare is aware of this, and involves slight subtleties such as: Thy prime of manhood, daring, bold, and venturous,’ (IV.IV.170). These qualities of daring, boldness, and venturous are qualities of a great leader, of a hero. Is that not what it is to be a hero? Richard had the potential to be a great, great king, and yet he let his tyrannical side dominate and thus took a turning that he could never undo. Although he was the committer of exceedingly heinous crimes, the man deserves praise for some of his qualities. His boldness, his cunning, and his intelligence. Very few men could woo a woman in such impossible circumstances, very few men could indirectly murder such high assorted nobility and remain innocuous. In my opinion Richard should not be condemned as a heartless tyrant with no redeeming features, as he had the potential to be one of the greatest kings ever. Both Shakespeare and Richard are guilty of manipulation, yet both should not be condemned. ‘My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, And every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns me for a villain’.
