h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Excellent article, well organised, very useful historical background leading up to Richard 111, and historical comments about Richard 111 himself.

Very true. I think you should submit this article, definately.

Just before anybody assumes that I'm indulging in a bit of self-flattery, I would like to point out that the above comment was in fact written by my mum, because she didn't realise it would appear under my user name...

I see... I thought it was a jokey one so you'd know if anyone replied here or not.

Well no... if it *had* been me, I would have been sure to put Richard *III*, not *111*...

I gave my mother her own userpage for comments like that.

Which she doen't use much.

Well, my mum is only just starting to be internet-literate, so I don't think she's quite to the stage of her own page yet...

But on the other hand, if she wants to carry on writing nice comments about my articles, then maybe I'll make sure that she *becomes* net-literate...

My mother's not becoming net literate until we have asdl.

Then she can be almost as net literate as she likes.

Sorry, DD, she's very busy...

Yes indeed,

I tried to explain word-processing to my mother once - she wasn't really interested. Thought it was a nice idea that you didn't have to print until you wanted to, but wasn't really interested.

She never touches computers now. Just has her manual typewriter - never liked electric ones.

Very interesting article, RA.

Every time I read or see this play I'm just wondering about one thing: Shakespeare must have disliked this character enormously. All other 'bad guys' in his dramas, like Macbeth, Jago have had something, which made me for few moments to understand why they did what they did. But Richard III is only evil, there is no good side in him at all. What do you think, RA?

Hi Kasia :-) That's an interesting question, and one that I've wondered about myself. From what I've discovered so far, the answer is far from simple... ;-) During Richard's lifetime, although there were people who disliked him, there were also those who thought highly of him. Edward IV's death led to a crisis in which Richard emerged as king, and the people seem to have been grateful for his leadership. Have a look here for a discussion about whether or not he arranged for the murder of the Princes: http://www.h2g2.com/F30582?thread=43233&post=502904 As for Clarence - Clarence's guilt was confirmed by an act of parliament, so although Richard may still have been guilty of causing his death, it seems unlikely. The other events in the play - his execution of Hastings, the death of his wife, the murder of her former husband, and the murder of King Henry VI - may or may not have been attributable to him. It's one of these things we'll never be sure of - did Richard do all this, or didn't he? If anybody knows, please tell me... :-) After Henry, Earl of Richmond, defeated Richard at Bosworth, he claimed the crown - but he claimed the crown by right of conquest, not from any genealogical right (this would have been doubtful at best). Since he was not strictly speaking the rightful successor to the throne, he needed to do everything in his power to consolidate his position, and one of the ways he chose to do this was by causing Richard to be remembered in a negative light. This meant that the "accepted" historical view, at least in Henry VII's time, was that Richard was a scoundrel and a villain; this is a view that is portrayed not just in Shakespeare's play, but also in the writings of Sir Thomas More, and other contemporary historians, whom Shakespeare may have used as sources for the play. On the day after the battle at Bosworth, the City of York had this to say about Richard: "...bring tidings from the same unto the City, that King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us, was, through great treason of the Duke of Norfolk and many others that had turned against him, with many other lords and nobility of these northern cities, was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this City..." ... which sounds distinctly as though they liked him. :-) Some of the things I've just said probably contradict what I said in the article, which leads me to my conclusion - I don't really know. ;-) I can speculate, but at the moment I simply haven't found enough material to prove conclusively whether or not Richard was the completely evil character that Shakespeare made him... (I hope that wasn't too boring... ;-))

Hello RA,

no, it wasn't boring at all, I would say on the contrary. I like you way of thinking and to be honest: some of this is quite new to me.

About Shakespeare: I think this is the genius in him, that he was able to combine historical facts and at the same time he gave his characters his very personal touch. Somehow he portrayed the history, I mean the surroundings, the behaviour.

BTW: what do you think about his comedys? I like 'The Midsummer Night' very much - it's like a connection between the Greek and Romanian myths and a fairy tale.

One play, that I'm not admiring very much is 'Romeo and Juliet' - I get angry every time I read it! The film version of it, playing in our time (with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes) was very interesting, though.

Hi,

Naturally, I agree about Shakespeare being a genius... From my point of view, although I enjoy history and I enjoy researching the lives of people such as Richard III, it doesn't bother me greatly if the character in Shakespeare's play is not historically authentic... I don't read or watch Shakespeare to learn history, I read or watch Shakespeare's plays because of their amazing insights into human character and because of the beauty of the language he uses...

I must admit, I don't know very much about "A Midsummer Night's Dream" - I've just seen the recent film adaptation of it, and nothing else (yet). However, I did very much like it; I like the way that there are so many different characters, and so many sub-plots, and yet the story never get confused or confusing...

One of my favourite comedies is "Twelfth Night" - it is so funny, but at the same time quite deep and profound.

What don't you like about Romeo and Juliet? I rather disliked the diCaprio version; the modernisation spoilt it for me... but it certainly was "interesting"...

I agree with you about the history; I'm also not looking in particular for portraying historicaly correct. If it would be so, I wouldn't read any sf-books for example. But, IF the character is or was really existing I like to compare.

'Romeo and Juliet': well, the suicide makes me nuts! I think, this is a very cowardly thing to do. Okay - I could understand someone is killing himself because of an extremly painful illness, but not because of a broken heart. In my opinion, they should have fight for their love or rather run away, then kill themselves.

I actually liked that - although it may not be very realistic, the idea of Romeo not wanting to live without his Juliet appealed to me.

I think it was a bit weak of him; if he had had a little more strength, he would have had the courage to stay alive and cope with his life, but he had given his heart to Juliet, and therefore there was nothing left for him.

Or something like that...

Yes, that's the point! The less of strength, you know. Of course, one may say, he was very young and that's why he wasn't able to cope with this situation, but on the other hand in those times people grew up early, so...