Richard II - Act II

[Quark]

The Henry plays I like very much; for one thing, we have a cast of colorful characters in those, the tavern (bawdy house) and the peasants. I think this play - Richard II encompasses only the upper class basically; so that, I don't have that connection with the commoners who are involved with the royalty, which give one that instant connection.

Yeah, Richard II does leave you gasping for variety, but I still think there are some wonderful parts of this play. The beginning of this Act, the end of the last Act, Richard's landing in England, his demise, all are great moments. Even when the story doesn't move you, though, Virgil is right that there is the language. It might not be the greatest of Shakespeare's works, but it still works for me. Now the last play you guys did, Merry Wives of Windsor, I could never make it through.

[Janine]

Yeah, Richard II does leave you gasping for variety, but I still think there are some wonderful parts of this play. The beginning of this Act, the end of the last Act, Richard's landing in England, his demise, all are great moments. Even when the story doesn't move you, though, Virgil is right that there is the language. It might not be the greatest of Shakespeare's works, but it still works for me. Now the last play you guys did, Merry Wives of Windsor, I could never make it through.

Yes, I do agree; there are some fine moments indeed; but it is just not my favorite of the plays so far.

I got lost in the last play we did; I couldn't make it past Act I. I think that one was so much nonsense and old world wit, that I could not comprehend it fully, so it lost a lot for me in understanding. It was just too hard to wade through; now that one was heavy on the peasant jargon.

I think Richard II would appeal more to men than to women.

[Quark]

I think Richard II would appeal more to men than to women.

You mean the play, right? Not the character.

[Virgil]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. I know that's not current political issue (where do you think Obama stands on it ) but was important in Shakespeware's day. Not only that we have the subject of a King who is dissolute and would rather party than rule responsibly. This contrasts with Bolingbroke who as Henry IV is all business and no play. Finally when we get to Henry V (as Prince Hal) we have the potential of Hal caught between Richard II and Henry IV in personality. He ultimately has to reject the part of him that wants to become like Richard II and be responsible.

[Janine]

It's actually a very intellectual play.

Well, excuse me! I guess I'm not that intellectual enough to appreciate this play. Seriously though, I get all of that, about 'Divine Right of Kings'; that is a big part of "Henry V", too. Kings back then, were nearly akin to the pope, having belief in a direct line to God. By the way, Shakespeare scholar, Virgil, my good friend (except when he brings up the O word in a negative light - see quote below), the word is spelled 'divine' - I even checked it in spell-check to be sure. You know me, I can't spell worth a darn either, but I would think you would know that from "Dante's Divine Comedy."

It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. I know that's not current political issue (where do you think Obama stands on it ) but was important in Shakespeware's day.

Not only that we have the subject of a King who is dissolute and would rather party than rule responsibly. This contrasts with Bolingbroke who as Henry IV is all business and no play. Finally when we get to Henry V (as Prince Hal) we have the potential of Hal caught between Richard II and Henry IV in personality. He ultimately has to reject the part of him that wants to become like Richard II and be responsible.

Funny, he sounds a little like Hamlet's uncle and Jabobi has played both roles effectively. Yes, he would rather party. Yes, Henry V likes to be in contact with the tavern low lifes and party as well. He is torn between his own humanity and his kingly calling. That is what always fascinates me about that play and his heartfelt speeches, even the ones all the way up to the big battle scene. That is an interesting analogy between Richard and Henry IV - hadn't thought of it before - I had thought more of Henry V's own family tree, being related to the Black Prince of Wales. That is even mentioned in the play after the battle has been won. I can't quite picture Henry being anything like Richard, quite honestly. Henry is too upstanding and honest and straightforward and fair. You are attacking my Henry now. I love the character of Henry V! He was even on the Romantic Character Pole thread list and I voted for him, among about a half a dozen others. I don't really find Richard II romantic at all. Maybe I am just not seeing it or something.

[Virgil]

Well, excuse me! I guess I'm not that intellectual enough to appreciate this play. Seriously though, I get all of that, about 'Divine Right of Kings'; that is a big part of "Henry V", too. Kings back then, were nearly akin to the pope, having belief in a direct line to God. By the way, Shakespeare scholar, Virgil, my good friend (except when he brings up the O word in a negative light - see quote below), the word is spelled 'divine' - I even checked it in spell-check to be sure. You know me, I can't spell worth a darn either, but I would think you would know that from "Dante's Divine Comedy."

Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it.

So you don't think O has flip flopped on this issue too?

Funny, he sounds a little like Hamlet's uncle and Jabobi has played both roles effectively. Yes, he would rather party. Yes, Henry V likes to be in contact with the tavern low lifes and party as well. He is torn between his own humanity and his kingly calling. That is what always fascinates me about that play and his heartfelt speeches, even the ones all the way up to the big battle scene. That is an interesting analogy between Richard and Henry IV - hadn't thought of it before - I had thought more of Henry V's own family tree, being related to the Black Prince of Wales. That is even mentioned in the play after the battle has been won. I can't quite picture Henry being anything like Richard, quite honestly. Henry is too upstanding and honest and straightforward and fair. You are attacking my Henry now. I love the character of Henry V! He was even on the Romantic Character Pole thread list and I voted for him, among about a half a dozen others. I don't really find Richard II romantic at all. Maybe I am just not seeing it or something.

I didn't mean to say that Hal was like Richard. If it came out that way let me refine it. Hal is caught in between the two possibilities. There exists a potential for him to become a Richard. Actually his father worries to death about the possibility. But it's obviously not Hal and as he matures rejects it out right. I think when he hangs his old friend Bardolph (? I think that's who it was) it shows he is deadly serious and has not feelings for the play life.

[Janine]

Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it.

You, of all people, the *nose in the air* guy who loves poetry, epic or otherwise... I wouldn't have brought it up, but I started to notice you repeating that spelling error more than a few times. Thought I would spare you more typos or wrong spellings.

So you don't think O has flip flopped on this issue too?

I refuse to discuss POLITICS with YOU! That is my final word.

I didn't mean to say that Hal was like Richard. If it came out that way let me refine it. Hal is caught in between the two possibilities. There exists a potential for him to become a Richard. Actually his father worries to death about the possibility. But it's obviously not Hal and as he matures rejects it out right. I think when he hangs his old friend Bardolph (? I think that's who it was) it shows he is deadly serious and has not feelings for the play life.

Right, I agree. Now I see what you are driving at. In that striking scene Henry had to enforce his own law and Bardolph was a prime example of that and a key moment in the play; his friend was almost like a sacrifice to his honor and kingly devotion. Personally, I found that one of the most heartbreaking, yet breath-taking moment in the play; especially seeing it played out on film. It was a great movie moment. It tore me up knowing what Henry was going through at that moment. It was not an easy thing for Hal to enforce. That was the turning point in the play. God, I love that play and you know I love the movie. I have seen it now about 30 times! haha....and you know why, a young KB plays Henry... I thought it was his finest role.

[wessexgirl]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. .

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

[Virgil]

[QUOTE=Janine;685050]

Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it.

You, of all people, the *nose in the air* guy who loves poetry, epic or otherwise... I wouldn't have brought it up, but I started to notice you repeating that spelling error more than a few times. Thought I would spare you more typos or wrong spellings.

My nose is no longer in the air.

I refuse to disguss POLITICS with YOU! That is my final word.

Ok, ok. But I was not really discussing politics. I was kidding around.

[Virgil]

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

I agree Wessex. It is superb, and the poetry is some of Shakespeare's best. I think the tension of overturning a king is lost on today world. Oh what has this society come too.

[Janine]

[QUOTE=Virgil;685054]

My nose is no longer in the air.

Oh good I brought you back down to earth! haha

Ok, ok. But I was not really discussing politics. I was kidding around.

Not funny. I have been noticing comments seeping into other threads, not just this one. Better to be silent than get in trouble.

[wessexgirl]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. .

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

[Janine]

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

Well, I don't dispute any of this; I really don't. The play is just not my personal favorite, but when I set out to read the history plays, I find this play is vital to understanding the full content of the other plays to follow. You are right in the fact, that seizing the crown from Richard sets in motion a lot of future events and deep feelings of unrest and even guilt. It does take a full generational leap to come to terms with Richard's death and dethronement. This is a very good point,Wessexgirl. Also, no doubt, you see it from a different perspective than I would, living in England and knowing the history of the monarchs. I love the story of Essex and Elizabeth. I once listened to a detailed history of the monarchs, and one thing certainly stood out the most to me, and that was how countless times, monarchs were overthrown and the crown was seized; so Richard II is not the first to experienced this, am I correct?

I also don't dispute, that this is a very fine play - really excellent. There is hardly a Shakespeare play, I would consider inferior. They are all great, but they all are different and some may appeal to one person more than another. I think that is all I was saying.

"England being a garden," - isn't this also mentioned in Henry V? It is at the end of the play with the Chorus projecting to us into the future history, that his son, after aquiring the crown after Henry V's intimely and early death, the young son's kingdom was managed by too many, causing the ruin of this most perfect garden, "making his England bleed". I am not sure of the exact quote and I am too lazy to look it up. If I find it, I will edit this. In one sense then, it reverts back to the other house finally taking over - thus the results of the "War of the Roses" is further explored in "Richard III."

I found the exact quote after I mangled the idea above. Here it is in the Epilogue:

EPILOGUE

Enter Chorus

Chorus
Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In little room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.

Exit

Again the tables are turned; that is what I find so exciting about these history plays.

[Virgil]

Oops, Wessex. Somehow you posted the same thing twice.

[Janine]

Oops, Wessex. Somehow you posted the same thing twice.

I noticed that. I thought I was seeing double.