Richard II is the start of the second of two history quadrilogies that Shakespeare wrote in his lifetime, and stands out as being less about battles that shaped England’s history as it is about what it means to be a king. The historic Richard was something of a tyrant who assumed the throne as a child when his grandfather, Edward III, died, and after taking care of a peasant’s revolt before he even reached adulthood, he was quite full of himself and his idea of how much power he had.
A character like that is prime for drama, and it’s an interesting play to look at given how much it was, let’s say, frowned upon in Shakespeare’s time to depict a rightful king get deposed. However, this was England’s history, and Richard’s removal paved the way for Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt…and probably the Wars of the Roses. Regardless, it’s a big moment Shakespeare was wise to dramatize.
Notable cast members: Besides John Geilgud returning, this time to play John of Gaunt, a man Shakespeare depicted as a wise old man (he was really the richest and probably most hated man in England in his lifetime), we have Derek Jacobi as Richard. I love Jacobi as an actor, but he’s a very vocal Oxfordian, so I try not to pay him much heed on the subject of who wrote the works he performs so well. He’ll be back down the road to play a certain melancholy Dane. Jon Finch plays Richard’s cousin Henry, the man also known as Henry IV, a role Finch will retain for the two plays named for that king. Finch likewise played Macbeth for Roman Polanski’s film version of that play. In smaller roles, there’s one time Blofeld Charles Gray as the Duke of York and original Boba Fett Jeremy Bullock as Henry Percy.
Trivia: Richard II is the only one of Shakespeare’s plays to be written entirely in verse. Even a couple gardeners speak in iambic pentameter when they appear. It fits a play that may be more about lofty ideas of kingship than anything else. However, given the fact it is about deposing a king, Shakespeare and his company were very fortunate not to be put to death when they performed the play as a private request to some nobles, not knowing the nobles in question were planning a revolution against Elizabeth I. Apparently, the play didn’t rile up the citizens against the queen as the conspirators may have hoped it would.
As for this production, Richard is deliberately set in such a way to appear literally above the other characters at the beginning, and as his fortunes fall, he appears lower and lower as time goes on.
The play: Richard II is not one of my personal favorites, but a lot of people love it, and for good reason. It really is more of a philosophical play than an action one. Henry Bollingbroke’s revolution is almost entirely bloodless. Two of Richard’s associates are executed off-stage, and that’s about it until Richard himself dies at the end of the play. Oddly enough, he gets to take a few murderers with him despite never once appearing to be any sort of competent soldier or fighter. Henry actually was, but he never gets to show that here.
Really, this play is about just who should and should not be a king. Richard is spoiled, a man-child who has a literal screaming fit in front of everyone after handing his crown over to Henry and abdicating his power. His best plan to retain his power is to stand in a tower and loudly remind everyone of his majesty by birth. Some productions will show that almost working, but he has almost no people on his side by then, and Henry, on the ground, has an army, including the two men’s mutual uncle, the Duke of York, last surviving son of Edward III.
Henry, by contrast, seems a more capable politician, beloved by the masses, a son of a patriotic father, and someone who knows how to use words. He breaks his banishment to return home, never claiming he wants to be king, but simply looking to get the rightful inheritance Richard stole to fund some Irish wars. Even after he’s given the crown, he never acts like he particularly set out to get it, but that said, he does have a huge problem: by showing it was possible to dethrone a king without divine punishment, it made the line of succession unstable for the better part of the next century, and Shakespeare shows Henry’s problems with potential usurpers or just people looking to put man-child Richard back in power started up almost immediately. Whatever joy he has in his new power ends abruptly when Richard’s corpse is brought in by someone who thought he was helping the new king out, and Henry’s misery continues into the next two plays, both named for him.
But this play asks a question most Renaissance drama wouldn’t have bothered much with, and one Shakespeare may return to with King Lear. and namely “What is a king when he is no longer a king?” Richard is, rightfully, obsessed with this idea as he comes to realize that without his crown, he’s basically nothing. Other characters wonder about this too. Richard did break the social contract when he took his cousin’s inheritance, and Henry in the play never wanted him killed, and yet, that’s what happens. What recourse do you have when an absolute monarch goes too far? How do you justify your own power when you break all precedent in your society? The ripple effects of this play and this history will play out in the long term, and in the meantime, we can always tell sad stories about the death of kings.
That is a seriously cool line.
Grade: As I said, this one isn’t one of my favorites, but it is a good play for anyone with an interest in politics. I’m gonna go with a B+ here.
Next: We have a comedy up next, with a very recognizable lead actress, and the required crossdressing as we find out how much a trip to the forest can make your life better with As You Like It.
0 Comments