Richard II

This winter we will be reading Richard II.

Please post your general comments and questions in this thread.

Wow, you put out all the Acts at once. I will have to pull out my Richard II and read. I hope people will join me. :)

I've read it last month, so hopefully i can contribute something with some reminders.

I started again this morning, as I lagged on my original intent to finish it last month. In defense of those Wiki volunteers, I will say their synopsis of the action is much clearer than some others I skimmed.

I am actually reading the play, not to worry, but my brain is aging, and keeping all the murders and defeats straight takes some concentration, as these are not stand alones, like the tragedies--still, it does all point to Shakespeare's fascination with true leadership and the actual investment of power in conflict with the dominant metaphors about divine rights. I know very little about William himself, but I think he had serious doubts about the political spin of his day.

I am very pro-Elizabeth 1. If she had not been what she was, and as skilled as she was, well, I was about to say something sweeping--however, though I applaud that she used marriage as a political tool, and that, rather brilliantly, Willie might have a point that she shoud have had a better succession plan in place. After all those power battles with Mary, on her deathbed she says, "Who else but our cousin James?"

Not saying she should have had a child (although why she did not is another issue) but by the time her Robin died she should have gotten serious about England's leadership thereafter. My professor thought, btw, that Robin was her real lover. The BBC seemingly couldn't bring itself to go that far though.

I bring all this up wondering if Shakespeare really was aiming barbs at his Virgin Queen through Bolingbroke's *rise*.

I guess that is one of the debates...

I can't spot a more recent thread. I hope this is the right place.

I have just viewed the BBC production of Richard II in the current series of "The Hollow Crown". It was riveting. I had not expected that this play could have been produced in such a fascinating way particularly as the drama is almost entirely centred on male characters with little scope for relief from the continuing tension by the interpolation of female roles. Both Richard and Bolingbroke were portrayed in convincing performances of a weakling who takes resort to regal power as justification for any act of baseness; and of a heroic warrior, proud of his reputation and keen to rectify the injustice suffered by him and his dukedom.

Richard is probably anxious to seize any opportunity to exile Bolingbroke because he fears the latter's capability may be turned against him. Bolingbroke is respectful of the King's majesty, however, but his banishment, far from removing the supposed threat to the King, simply galvanises his determination to recover his name from the depths of indignity to which his sentence has sunk him; and the injustice done to his estate upon his father's death by a capricious King becomes the catalyst for action.

Bolingbroke is, nonetheless, respectful of the King's authority but Richard becomes aware that he has very little support either from the nobles or his people. He still clings to the belief of divine right, however, against all practicalities. Being a weak and indecisive man, he succumbs to the overwhelming psychological pressure and surrenders the crown to B. and thereby any residue of authority. His subsequent murder is historically contentious but there is no doubt that Henry (B) would somehow have been complicit therein.

Excellent actors, (such as in The Hollow Crown), can transform these roles within a complete spectrum of character. This production chooses to portray the protagonists as, on the one hand, a feeble cockleshell tossed about by seas of indecision too reliant upon the aura of his rank for assistance from his supposed supporters and, on the other hand, a deferential warrior cleverly closing the opportunity for resistance and aware that once undertaken, his transgression against banishment must be pursued to Richard's final deposition.

Neither character is secure. Henry is destined for a life spent in repelling rebellions and in the feelings of guilt of having deposed a lawful King. Richard lives in a world subservient to any whim and ends philosophising at the injustice of his fate.

The poetry of this play is remarkable. How could Shakespeare have possessed these characters so feelingly? But he did; and we are grateful.