Richard II - Act III

[Janine]

I'm here. You ladies are a little scatter brained. This is Act III. It says right on top of the page.

That's what I just said, silly. If you wish to move on, could you direct us scatter-brains to the thread of Act IV?

[MissScarlett]

I'm here. You ladies are a little scatter brained. This is Act III. It says right on top of the page.

I see it says Act III at the top of the page, but I think we got ahead of ourselves in the discussion because the abdication scene is in Act IV.

How did we do that?

I am confused.

Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/sha.../richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

[Janine]

I see it says Act III at the top of the page, but I think we got ahead of ourselves in the discussion because the abdication scene is in Act IV.

How did we do that?

I am confused.

Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/sha.../richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

hahaah...stop worrying! No, most likely I am the one in the 'alternate universe'!!! It's so funny...I say that phrase all the time now. How did you know, MissS?

I think what happened is we had to point to that scene (Act IV) to explain some things that happened in Act III; who knows who first mentioned it. The poetry all ties in so it's hard to separate all the aspects of R's moodiness and melancoly. I think it's fine where we are now and if we revisit some of the stuff we already commented on it's better than skipping over it altogether.

Did anyone read my comments in my long post on last page, before we go onto Act IV? I don't need replys, but was not sure my post was even seen or noticed. It's now a page back.

[MissScarlett]

I read your post, Janine. I commented on some of the things.

Yes, the history is inaccurate, to some extent, but I still love the plays as much as you do, I think.

[Quark]

Richard can hand over his crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but he can't really abdicate as king, having been divinely anointed.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't really thought about it that much, but it's true that Richard's vacillating might have less to do with his character and more to do with the nature of kingship. He could be struggling to find himself because he still is the king even though he doesn't possess the throne.

I do think when he arrived back in England, wasn't it believed at first that Richard was dead? I seem to recall that the general impression for among the populous was that Richard, having not returned from the uprising in Ireland was thought to be have been killed.

But did he know that when he decided to sail back to England? He probably decided what he was going to do before he set foot on land.

When I first read these plays, I thought to myself, "why do they call them histories?"; they do often fluctuate greatly from the actual historical facts; I recall further exploring this online, at the time. I though these plays mostly turned out to be tragedies. I wish they designated them as 'history/tragedies'; although, I guess "Henry V" would not be seen as a tragedy; but the last lines indicate tragedy to come. I once got a audio set from my library on the full history of the monarchs. One thing that stood out most while listening to it, was how many kings were overthrown for centuries and murdered. I don't think it was such a great thing to become king in those days and we think modern rulers jobs are dangerous. I don't think many ruling kings and queens lived too long.

Some of the histories are weird plays. What does one call Richard III? Is it really a tragedy? Is Henry V a comedy? This one is a little easier to figure out--it's decidely tragic--but some of the others are hard to classify.

He didn't reason the circumstances that would eventually befall him. He felt he was above all that.

Yeah, I think that's true. Early in the play he thinks he's invulnerable, and this makes it hard to come to terms with the rebellion. He doesn't know how to respond to a threat because he didn't think anyone could threaten him.

Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/sha.../richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

That link goes to the actual text of the play--good stuff, of course--but we're talking about the Richard II Act IV discussion thread. Each Act has its own thread. I'm not sure why we do it this way, but don't blame me. I had nothing to do with it. In any case, the Act IV thread is here:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=40829

When we move onto Act IV, we'll abandon this thread and move into the one I just linked to.

[MissScarlett]

I can't imagine what I'm missing here, as the garden scene ends Act III, and the abdication scene closes Act IV.

I can't understand how we can be discussing Act III, when we've discussed what's in Act IV.

I am now hopelessly confused.

Before we move on (or backwards), I just want to say something more about "divine right."

I do think Shakespeare believed wholeheartedly in it. One of the common threads that runs through all the history plays is: Is the King (or Queen) of England divinely anointed/appointed. Shakespeare seems to think yes, as he highlights the fact that the consequences of overthrowing or conspiring to overthrow a king or queen is subject to the most dire of consequences.

The reign of Henry IV was marked by lifelong problems, problem that could only be set right by Henry V. Even Richard II is haunted by the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. In some of the plays, like "Hamlet" and "Julius Caesar," for example, literal ghosts make their appearance.

I think Shakespeare was a firm believer that English kings and queens were divinely anointed.

[Quark]

I am now hopelessly confused.

I tend to do that to people.

Let me try again at this, though. If you follow this link it will take you to the
"Shakespeare Discussion Group":

http://www.online-literature.com/for...lay.php?f=5895

There you should see a bunch of threads devoted to Henry IV, and then below that should be those holding the Richard II discussion. Scroll down and you'll see a thread that says "Richard II - Act IV". Click on that and it will bring you to this Act IV discussion. We're still in the Act III discussion thread at the moment, but we'll move to that other thread soon.

I can't imagine what I'm missing here, as the abdication scene closes Act IV.

I can't understand how we can be discussing Act III, when we've discussed what's in Act IV.

Oh, we can still talk about the other Acts. The admins aren't going to move posts about other Acts out of this thread. I can say something like "Act IV is really cool" without actually being in the Act IV thread. But, just because we talk about Act IV in this thread, doesn't mean that this is the Act IV thread. It still says "Richard II - Act III" above us.

[MissScarlett]

Thanks, Quark. Now, I see how I got confused. I started talking about Act IV in the Act III thread, then, being unfamiliar with how this works, started thinking we had formally moved on to Act IV and should be moving on to Act V.

Well, I'm straightened out now, thank goodness. LOL Yes, we're formally moving on to Act IV.

Thank you!

[Janine]

Glad you all sorted that out. MissScarlett, I can easily see how you would be confused, not knowing the discussion had been broken up into various thread acts.

So, I see the Easter group is reassembled; we may be the lonely-hearts club here...just kidding. I got back from dinner at my aunt's not long ago; it was very nice actually and now I plan to rest up and relax tonight, indulge myself in a movie or two, as someone has wisely adviced me. I'm sort of tired after all the good food; carrot cake was the best. Oddest thing, I had some interesting discussions with two young men (about 18-22) and then an old geezer friend of aunt's...see age means nothing. My two cousins were there and it's always good to see them and their teenage daughters. The whole affair was 'short and sweet', which suited my mood for the day; so I am thankful for that.

Thanks, Quark, for providing the link and how to get to the actual discussion thread. I can always locate the text link, but then I can't find the next actual 'discussion thread'....I have no idea why these plays is broken up into Acts for the discussion, but it seems to work ok, I guess. Remember though, Quark, how we both jumped into the Richard II Act V thread already, quite by accident...silly us. I just seriously, thought I had missed the boat and that you were all up to that point in the play, so I posted in there....silly me Well, now that I know where we all are headed next I am ready to progress to Act IV.