Differences between Shakespeares play Richard III and the true history?
The difference of how Richard became King and other little or big significant events, people etc.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Totally different. Richard was actually popular, a fact most overlook. The two men who turned against him at the Battle of Bosworth Field did not outlive him by ten years even. One was lynched collecting taxes for Henry VII, and the other was executed by Henry VII for treason. The death of Henry's son, Arthur, and the infamous inability of Henry VIII to have a son by so many women, were seen as part of a curse on the Tudors. Also there were plenty of rebellions and uprisings by "pretenders", some of whom actually having a good chance of being the Princes in the Tower supposedly murdered by Richard III. Note that when Henry VII came to power he could not produce the bodies of the princes, even though it would have been in his best interests. His claim to the throne was partly through his grandfather's affair with the widowed queen of Henry V. Also Caxton was a good friend of Richard, and had to reprint the opening pages of his book. The Woodvilles were unpopular and seen as plundering the royal wealth and using their positions to their own ends. Even Richard's so-called physical deformity is unfounded.
- 1 decade ago
Best answer is that we can never know for sure. Shakespeare rendition of Richard the III is not based on any type of first hand account. It is instead based on a story told by one of Richard's families political rivals, told many decades later, who was in fact a small child at the time of the events in question, and not even at court when the events in question were going on. There is no doubt that the original accounting, adapted by Shakespeare for his play, was politically motivated. Does that mean it couldn't also be true? No, but it does greatly reduce the credibility. In truth, there is no real proof that the princes were even murdered in the tower, or at all. There were children's skeletons found, at a much later point, but carbon dating could only place them within 100 years of Richard's Reign. The current royal family has refused to let the bones be retested with more modern equipment (I think the last testing was in the 60's). There were also several instances in following years of men claiming to be the princes. They were generally discredited, but who knows? I think the most damning fact to the credibility of the story is that, even though Richard's enemies accused him of many things, it was several decades after the events in question before anyone accused him of killing the princes.Source(s): BA in both Renaissance History & Lit.
- baldinoLv 43 years ago
Of the tragedies, Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet are the main respected. on an identical time as a lot of human beings think of Hamlet is the final of those I want King Lear. Of the histories, Julius Caesar, Richard III and Henry V are frequently noted as his ultimate. i could no longer allow you to be attentive to why, yet Julius Caesar did no longer carry my interest so nicely because of the fact the others. Of the comedies, As you like it, 12th night, the provider provider of Venice and The Tempest are frequently noted. i like the Tempest ultimate (and performed Caliban in a school manufacturing, so i would be biased). of all of them, King Lear is by making use of far my sought after.