The Tragedy of Richard III was based on the true life king who ruled 1483 to 1485, just two short years. Richard III was no doubt a really bad guy. He was a murderer, a tyrant, a hypocrite, and a traitor. Shakespeare presents Richard in an extremely negative way throughout the entire play. He was shown as an evil person; who was fascinated with the control that only being the king could have brought him, and he would have taken any risk that was needed to become the King. He was motivated by his need for control; he manipulated people and murdered his way onto the throne.
I believe that there are two Richards, a Machiavellian monster formed by Shakespeare; and Richard III; the historical figure who many historians have claimed is an innocent …show more content…
27-31).
In the play it is pretty obvious that Richard III is a killer. Richard kills or more often has people kill for him. There is a list of people, including; George Duke of Clarence, Lord Hastings, Lord Rivers, and the two men with him. He is said to have had his nephews Edward V and Richard, Duke of York killed. He also kills the Duke of Buckingham, and his wife and Anne Neville. It is also understood that Richard killed Henry VI, Henrys son Edward, Prince of Wales, and Anne Neville’s first husband. Historically, there were fewer victims.
The most scandalous of the murders that Richard had been accused of was him being the man who murdered his two nephews Edward V and Richard, the sons of Edward IV in the Tower of London. The oldest boy, Edward V was just 12 years old, and his little brother Richard was 9.
On April 9th, 1483, Richard III’s brother, Edward IV died. Just a couple days before he died, he managed to add on to his will naming Richard Protector and Defensor of the Realm. This also allowed him to care for Edwards young sons, the soon to be King Edward V. (Murph 16). After his father’s death the new king, Edward V traveled from Ludlow to London. Richard would meet him here and accompany him to the capital, where he would be put up in the quarters in the Tower of London. Edward V’s brother, Richard would later join him in the …show more content…
To find Richard III guilty of this crime; after an ample amount of time has passed, would not make any sense. “The defense sought to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence and show that others, such as Henry VII, who killed Richard III on Bosworth field, had a better motive and opportunity to commit the crime” (Richard III Society). I don’t think there is any way that someone could, today, convict Richard III for a crime that is most known for being in a fictional play. This crime has been scrutinized for over 500 years, and no one has been able to say that they know exactly who did it, and nobody ever will. All the evidence there will ever be is only
I believe that there are two Richards, a Machiavellian monster formed by Shakespeare; and Richard III; the historical figure who many historians have claimed is an innocent …show more content…
27-31).
In the play it is pretty obvious that Richard III is a killer. Richard kills or more often has people kill for him. There is a list of people, including; George Duke of Clarence, Lord Hastings, Lord Rivers, and the two men with him. He is said to have had his nephews Edward V and Richard, Duke of York killed. He also kills the Duke of Buckingham, and his wife and Anne Neville. It is also understood that Richard killed Henry VI, Henrys son Edward, Prince of Wales, and Anne Neville’s first husband. Historically, there were fewer victims.
The most scandalous of the murders that Richard had been accused of was him being the man who murdered his two nephews Edward V and Richard, the sons of Edward IV in the Tower of London. The oldest boy, Edward V was just 12 years old, and his little brother Richard was 9.
On April 9th, 1483, Richard III’s brother, Edward IV died. Just a couple days before he died, he managed to add on to his will naming Richard Protector and Defensor of the Realm. This also allowed him to care for Edwards young sons, the soon to be King Edward V. (Murph 16). After his father’s death the new king, Edward V traveled from Ludlow to London. Richard would meet him here and accompany him to the capital, where he would be put up in the quarters in the Tower of London. Edward V’s brother, Richard would later join him in the …show more content…
To find Richard III guilty of this crime; after an ample amount of time has passed, would not make any sense. “The defense sought to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence and show that others, such as Henry VII, who killed Richard III on Bosworth field, had a better motive and opportunity to commit the crime” (Richard III Society). I don’t think there is any way that someone could, today, convict Richard III for a crime that is most known for being in a fictional play. This crime has been scrutinized for over 500 years, and no one has been able to say that they know exactly who did it, and nobody ever will. All the evidence there will ever be is only