Shakespeare’s “Richard III” exists as a providential narrative in support of the Tudor Myth; that it was only through the divinely sanctioned rule of Henry VII that brought about peace after an era of turmoil under the reign of Richard III. As such, Shakespeare’s pro-Tudor bias highlights the politically and morally absolutist agenda of his time.…
Royalty is a term we like to associate with elegance, sophistication, and luxury. They’re the envy of all as they seem to live an extravagant lifestyle filled with exotic trips, an unlimited supply of money, and a stress-free life. But what is often overlooked, is the overwhelming responsibility they have to be the face of a country. Sir George Savile, a member of England’s King Charles II’s Privy Council, attempts to persuade his audience to think of King Charles II as a beloved individual who has suffered greatly, but refused to show it for the sake of his people. Savile succeeds in this by using metaphors, imagery, and allusion.…
When Henry snooped around at night in disguise, he looked for opinions of what the soldiers thought of him. The Chorus called this: “A little touch of Henry in the night” What Henry found out, is that the soldiers all respect him, but some doubt his cause to invade France. He came across one of his old friends, Ancient Pistol, who shows his affection towards Henry, even though Henry killed one of Pistol’s best friends, Bardolf: “The King is a bawcock, and a heart of gold,, A lad of life, an imp of fame…” I am led to believe that Henry V was an ideal King with some traits that could show him as a ruthless tyrant.…
The successes of Henry VIII can be seen in his ability to keep and gain power and the force of his military efforts.To determine if Henry’s rule was a success, we must define what success means in the context of a ruler. This argument identifies the goals set forth by Henry, and his ability to achieve these goals. It’s also worthwhile to note the state and legacy that his rule left upon England. The reasons we can call Henry VIII’s reign a success will be laid out in his personal, political, religious and military accomplishments while on the throne. Henry’s reign can be defined by his ability to indulge in his desires. Whether that was to take and hold power, spend money on luxuries and war, or to consume more food in his later years. He had a number of personal desires beyond living a life of luxury, namely to have an male heir to the throne. Despite troubling history of marriage, he was successful in not only producing one heir, but three: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I.Henry was successful in using fear to make those seeking to undermine think…
In act IV, prince Hal and Falstaff develop unusual relations. The two characters frequently exchange good-natured insult towards each other. The reader comes to see this as a reality as they are unfit to have a good relationship with each other. Though they are related through blood, they hate each other with the spontaneous insult they have in this act. Prince Hal is the surrogate son of Falstaff. He is the factious son. Falstaff is said to be the second father. He is like a parent who does not care about their son’s wellbeing. He has no respect at prince Hal. On the hand, prince Hal is the one who persuades him to emulate him to take his parental role. Their relationship with each other leads to the development of a character similar to King Henry. They all want to impress their audience. Falstaff seems to influence Hal into developing character of King Henry. He wants him to like a leader. He teaches him to learning the art of appreciating every small gift the society has to offer. Though Hal relationship is completely different from his relationship with…
Throughout William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, there exists an inner struggle among all characters, as to who they are and who they strive to become. Princes of rival nations, Hamlet and Fortinbras, undergo a desire to achieve a greatness to which they feel destined. Through examining these two characters, one can discover the true value of a foil in developing the character’s personality, differentiating the feeling of defeat, and the motives affecting their…
This openness with his audience allows King to better establish a connection to them. In an essay by John Guinan called “Speaking Personally,” Guinan analyses the landscape of his fathers and his conversations. He talks about how he was not as open with his father as his father was to him and how because of this there was a “chasm” between them (317)…
A deeper understanding of ambition and identity emerges from pursuing the connections between King Richard III and Looking for Richard.…
“There sat down, once, a thing on Henry’s heart só heavy, if he had a hundred years & more… Henry could not make good”.…
In this comparison, Hotspur is the too hot porridge, Falstaff is the too cold porridge, and lastly Hal is just right. Hal is the perfect in between of Hotspur and Falstaff. Hal understands honor to be noble behavior, not noble actions. He shows us at the beginning of the play that he’s a ruffian, but lets us in on his plan to regain the honor later. These actions of hanging out with criminals and hoodlums didn’t earn him favor with his father or with England for that matter. His plan to earn the honor later was to lower the views of him now, so that when it is time to be the hero everyone will love him even more instead of just expecting it from the get-go. His longing for honor is in moderation and he achieved honor in a suitable way. When Hal fought Hotspur it wasn’t so that he could earn honor but so he could save the thrown and his father, it was essential. Hal’s plan was effective, removing himself from his previous lifestyle just in time to be the hero his father needed him to…
In Henry IV Part II William Shakespeare uses diction, syntax, and imagery to convey King Henry’s state of mind.…
one's eyes as time passes, but because it reigns the ebb and flow of the tides.…
Lotherington says, ‘No king could rule without the co-operation of the nobility, which was largely responsible for conducting the king’s business in the provinces’ and Pendrill supports this when he says that Henry VII’s prime aim was to restore a partnership in government, shifting the balance in his favour after the disruption of the Wars of the Roses. Policies to achieve this combined a mix of the ‘carrot and stick’ technique. The ‘stick’ approach combined military and financial restraints and a reduction in central and local power. Whereas the ‘carrot,’ approach saw Henry develop a reward system for service and encouraging loyalty from his peers. However the question remains, how did Henry do when meeting the nobles. Are we to believe Pendrill who claims, ‘Henry’s relationship with his nobility was, ultimately a failure.’ Or are we to follow Guy’s line who claims, ‘by means of bonds, Henry VII in effect disabled his nobility.’…
Shakespeare, William. 1 Henry IV. Ed. Gordon McMullan. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003. Print.…
The play puts forth the idea that a great ruler might not be what many would consider a good person. Henry is an extraordinarily good leader: he is intelligent, focused, and inspiring to his men. He uses all of the resources at his disposal to ensure that he is victorious. Henry’s charismatic personality allows him to connect with his subjects and motivate them to fight for him, and follow him as their true and undeniable king. However, in becoming a great king, the reader begins to see a much darker side to Henry.…