Response 9 - Richard III by Aaron Angello

Natalie Benincasa

2026-04-07 00:30:26 UTC

When comparing the two plays Richard II and Richard III, both of these plays demonstrate different types of kingships. The biggest difference between the two is how they gain their power and the basic understanding of their power they have. In Richard II, he is a legitimate king who believes in the idea of the king having the divine right and he makes the assumption that his authority was granted to him by God and it focuses more on ceremony than being an effective leader for a kingdom and the people. When looking at "Essential Shakespeare", Richard's downfall shows how fragile this belief can be when a ruler fails his kingdom or country politically. Now, looking at Richard III, he has no moral or sacred right to the throne, he instead gains his power through manipulation and violence and for him, power to him means that it is something that needs to be actively taken or controlled, like Richard III controlling his kingdom the people. Something else that makes these plays different is the overall tone and dramatic style of each of these plays. Richard II is much slower and philosophical, focusing on the themes and identity of what kingship really is and Richard III is faster paced and more driven based on his actions, he is also frequently addressing the audience and drawing them into his schemes and plans. Overall, we know that Richard II is considered the weaker ruler who loses his power through passivity, while Richard III is a ruthless ruler who gains his power through manipulating people, but together they both represent opposite extremes or leadership.

Kyle Stone

2026-04-07 17:39:04 UTC

Comparing Richard the 2^nd to Richard the 3^rd I can see the difference in the two plays as in like Richard the 2^nd is a much more grounded play than that of Richard the 3^rd in the sense that Richard the 2^nd the character is more tame compared to the actions that Richard the 3^rd partakes. The 2^nd biggest action was sitting on the throne dictating whether someone is banished from the kingdom or not where Richard the 3^rd commits multiple murders and actively fights on the battlefield at the end. We see the difference between the two Richards in the fact of how they behave but also generally the main conflicts of the plays are drastically different to one another as Richard the 2^nd conflict arises due to his flaws causing more internal disputes where Richard the 3^rd's flaws cause issues that affect the entire country and world at large. Another difference between the plays is the use of women in the play in Richard the 3^rd the women present are much more prevalent throughout the play and play a much more active role than those in Richard the 2^nd where in that play the women really show up to say a few lines that may drastically effect the story in the short term but are not active players in the entire play. Also, in Richard the 2nd the play’s antagonist is one that is a bit hard to decrease though can be seen as Richard the 2^nd himself as the antagonist. Maybe Bolingbroke can be seen as an antagonist, but he actively shows remorse of his actions at the end. Whereas in Richard the 3^rd the main antagonist is the titular Richard solely based on how brutal his actions are and how he is defeated at the end of the play on the battlefield in a moment of weakness creating that cathartic moment for the audience seeing this usurping tyrant go down.

George B.

2026-04-08 00:11:02 UTC

Usurped—Usurper

Christ-like—Devil Incarnate

Reticent—Confident

Timid—Brash

Kind-Hearted—Mean-Spirited

Contemplative—Impulsive

Beautiful—Repulsive

Indecisive—Decisive

Transparent—Conniving

Effeminate—Masculine

Quiet—Loud

Good—Evil

Forthright—Surreptitious

Passive—Aggressive

Pleasant—Odious

Sincere—Insidious

Principled—Unscrupulous

Authorized—Illegitimate

Enigmatic—Obvious

Decent—Inappropriate

Proper—Unsuitable

Two kings-diametrically opposed in temperament in many ways; yet with all their differences each exhibits a degree of petulance in their respective stories-though different in their expression. Richard II is somewhat childish and sullen. Richard III is opprobrious and manic. As with regular folks, kings come in all shapes, sizes and flavors.

It seems fitting that Richard II was accorded a decent burial and fairly soon thereafter his remains were moved to Westminster next to those of his first wife. Conversely, Richard III’s “resting place” was unknown for over five hundred years until it was found under a layer of asphalt in a parking garage in a space marked with an “R” for reserved parking. Such are the rewards of the afterlife perhaps.

Brielle Morris

2026-04-08 13:15:07 UTC

I think the biggest difference I saw was in how the two kings were presented, the first one being how they both came to power. King Richard the second was divinely appointed, the rightful heir, and really leaned into the role of king in a hands off manner. He had everyone do his dirty work for him, but felt he had the right to do it. One example, is when he has Bolingbroke and Murway dual each other, and then took over the role of God in deciding their fate to exile. The idea of a dual was that whoever was "true" would win, with God being on their side. King Richard the second interrupting this, showed that he put his power on the same pedestal as God. King Richard the third, was not the rightful heir, and had to kill his way into power. He was presented throughout the play, up until his death as a very violent person; we see a shift from violent to "repent-ful" in King Richard the second. King Richard the third killed people, as well as had people do it for him, but unlike King Richard the second, he played the role of the victim after these murders. He would act confused or sad after the deaths of people in succession to the throne, and when it came down to it, he was like, "Oh no I can't be king... well I guess if you're pulling my leg, I must". This is the complete opposite in what we see with King Richard the Second. He (King Richard the second) truly believes he can act in any manner, do whatever he wants, because he was the 'chosen one'. Also in their physical descriptions they differ. King Richard the second was very feminine in a way, whereas King Richard the Third is presented to be monster like.

Luke Willis

2026-04-08 16:25:09 UTC

The big difference I noticed between the plays was the characters of the kings. Richard II has a terminal case of thinking he's supposed to be king, while Richard III knows he isn't and does not care. In fact, Richard II didn't fight for the throne back, not that he could. RIII schemes and murders his way to the throne. Richard II also focuses on the nature of a king's identity- he's introspective, he can change perspectives and wrestle with them. Richard III doesn't do all that. He knows exactly who he is. All kingship does is make him worse. Richard II is actively bad at being a king, and so is Richard III, but II is bad in an almost childlike way where III is just cartoonishly evil. (I love him.) But RIII seems like more of an actualized person outside of the kingship than RII is, which is really interesting for me. The way Richard II has no identity outside being king fascinates me deeply. There's something wrong with him

Allison Munoz

allisonmf19 — 2026-04-09 05:05:01 UTC

While I know this has already been said, I feel like the most obvious difference between Richard II and Richard III is how each king is characterized and how they go about their power (and their loss of it). If we are going to talk about kings, we have to look at both ends of the spectrum, Richard II on one side and Richard III on the other. While both plays talk about the rise and fall of monarchs, the personalities of the two Richards are vastly different. In Richard II, Richard has this deep and poetic feel to him. While he is clearly not the best king in terms of doing his responsibilities, Richard is king by the divine right of kings, that basically states that his position is sacred and protected by God, thus making it “impossible to remove him”. This would later cause his downfall as he fails to realize that the people are unhappy until it is too late. But the main thing is that this loss of power is not Richard’s only issue; his loss of power feels almost secondary to his loss of identity, making it feel more tragic and depressing than a ruthless king doing what he does for no reason (cough cough). In Richard III, we are presented with a king who is aware of his power and decides to exercise it ruthlessly. He is manipulative, strategic, and immoral. From the beginning, he openly declares his intentions to take the throne. While Richard II loses power because he cannot manage it, Richard III gains power because he understands how to control and exploit others. There seems to be no depth to Richard III’s character beside his utter selfish desire for power when we have a king like Richard II who has had the crown all his life and now has to face his remaining days as a different person. Overall, clearly there is a reason I had more to say about Richard II than the III in class…

Caspian Byers

2026-04-09 12:49:37 UTC

Richard III and Richard II are wildly different in their characterization and even seem to create a completely different idea of kingship as Richard II did. While Richard II makes kingship a heavy weight and something that is troublesome, perhaps even to those born into the power, Richard III doesn’t seem to serve that purpose. While I wouldn’t go as far to say that it is shallower than Richard II I think it serves a different purpose and that is reflected in it. The purpose of Richard II is legitimizing Henry’s rule as the current king would have been related, it was justifying why Henry was the better alternative, showing Richard to be ineffective and a poor fit, full of divine beliefs of himself and not grounded enough to be a powerful king. But because Henry was so conflicted in the removal of Richard it was not seeking to create a narrative of him being ultimately evil. However, while charismatic, Richard III is bordering on slander. It is less concerned with justifying the current ruler and more concerned with justifying the removal of Richard III and destroying his character, telling dramatized events of his life and doings and proving him to have been evil despite being charismatic. It wasn’t really an ‘unveiling’ of the truth, Shakespeare by no means invented an idea that Richard III was a corrupt figure in history, but rather there seems to be an effort placed into explaining how such a thing happened. Richard is quite outwardly evil and it is plain to see to an audience and yet the other characters are manipulated and convinced to his side and allow his possession of the crown. He lies and cheats his way to the top and that was done through trickery, it seems to me that Richard II was justifying the death and why Henry was a good king despite his questionable power acquisition while Richard III was more concerned with excusing the failures of those who did not see through Richard’s lies while also destroying any remaining questionability Richard III may have had in society.

Cameron Luchie

2026-04-09 15:37:58 UTC

One of the biggest differences between Richard III and Richard II is how they treat power and what it even means to be king. In Richard II, kingship feels almost sacred, like Richard believes he is chosen by God and that gives him authority even when he is clearly not a good ruler. The play spends a lot of time sitting in that idea, questioning it but still treating it seriously, which makes everything feel more reflective and kind of heavy. In Richard III, that idea is basically gone. Power is not divine at all, it is something you can just take if you are ruthless enough. Richard knows exactly what he is doing and does not try to justify it in a moral or religious way, he just goes for it and manipulates everyone around him to get what he wants. The tone is also really different because Richard II feels slower and more focused on internal struggle, especially with Richard himself as he loses control and starts to understand his own failure. It is more about identity and what happens when that identity falls apart. Richard III moves a lot faster and feels more active, like everything is constantly happening and people are being taken out one by one. Richard also talks directly to us, which makes a huge difference because we are in on everything from the start. That makes the play feel almost more modern since it is so aware of itself and of performance. In a way, Richard II feels like watching someone lose power, while Richard III feels like watching someone build power in the most extreme and calculated way possible.

Alexis Simmerman

2026-04-09 16:05:08 UTC

The biggest difference to me is how different the kings are. Number 2 presents more as a kid being spoiled from birth getting a swift dose of karma as people knock his crown off his head due to his own poor choices. Number two clearly shows no understanding of the responsiblity involved with being king, and as a result, he's demonstratingly terrible at ruling, harping on more about divine right than actually being a leader. This in turn, made him a fragile ruler, one that could be toppled with ease. The thrid, meanwhile, had no right to the throne, but he gained it through attributes the second should have had. He showed cunning and planning through manipulation and violence, clearly demonstrating his ability to use power in a way that is measured and deliberate. He takes his power and controls it himself, showing that even without the birthright, he's far more of a king than the second ever was.

Spencer Criscuoli

2026-04-09 23:56:14 UTC

Despite the similarity in their names, Richard II and Richard III display notably different types of kingly governance. Richard II leaned into themes of the divine right of kings and how it does not matter that Richard II became king when he was a kid and never got to mature because this was God’s will. Richard II’s incompetence as a king is the ultimate cause of his downfall and Bolingbroke’s rise to kingship. Richard III, then, is similar to Shakespeare’s more traditional tragedies, like Macbeth and to some extent Hamlet, where a corrupt person manipulates his way to power and is ultimately the cause of his own downfall. Richard III talks down his enemies, not trying to uplift his army necessarily, but to make his enemies seem weak. He is at his heart a manipulator in an attempt to rise to power, making him a direct parallel to Richard II. It reminds me of a classic phrase that goes “never attribute to malice that which could adequately be explained by incompetence”. I feel like this phrase perfectly encapsulates the differences between Richard II and Richard III. Both of the Richards, 2^nd and 3^rd, also represent the two sides of extreme rulership. Richard II is a passive figure reliant on his divine right to stay in power because he has not known anything else. Richard III murders and manipulates his way to the top to rule ruthlessly. Both Richards die by the end of each of their plays, but Richard II dies much more honorably than Richard III. Henry IV feels remorse and regret for having to kill Richard II, while Richard III dies in battle. Overall, I liked comparing and contrasting these two kings and how Shakespeare depicts them, as I definitely thought that they would end up being more similar than they were.Despite the similarity in their names, Richard II and Richard III display notably different types of kingly governance. Richard II leaned into themes of the divine right of kings and how it does not matter that Richard II became king when he was a kid and never got to mature because this was God’s will. Richard II’s incompetence as a king is the ultimate cause of his downfall and Bolingbroke’s rise to kingship. Richard III, then, is similar to Shakespeare’s more traditional tragedies, like Macbeth and to some extent Hamlet, where a corrupt person manipulates his way to power and is ultimately the cause of his own downfall. Richard III talks down his enemies, not trying to uplift his army necessarily, but to make his enemies seem weak. He is at his heart a manipulator in an attempt to rise to power, making him a direct parallel to Richard II. It reminds me of a classic phrase that goes “never attribute to malice that which could adequately be explained by incompetence”. I feel like this phrase perfectly encapsulates the differences between Richard II and Richard III. Both of the Richards, 2^nd and 3^rd, also represent the two sides of extreme rulership. Richard II is a passive figure reliant on his divine right to stay in power because he has not known anything else. Richard III murders and manipulates his way to the top to rule ruthlessly. Both Richards die by the end of each of their plays, but Richard II dies much more honorably than Richard III. Henry IV feels remorse and regret for having to kill Richard II, while Richard III dies in battle. Overall, I liked comparing and contrasting these two kings and how Shakespeare depicts them, as I definitely thought that they would end up being more similar than they were.

Daniella Bowie

2026-04-12 20:47:12 UTC

In many ways, Shakespeares Richard II and Richard III parallel each other, and yet that are (fundamentally different in their approach. Specifically focusing on the characters Richard II and Richard III, they are both blinded by power. Richard II doesn’t see/accept how his power can be challenged, while Richard III recognizes how unstable that power ultimately is and how easily is can be obtained through his scheming and deception of those in command. There are several times where Richard III directly addresses the audience and narrates his evil deeds and acknowledges his villainy, while Richard II only becomes self aware of his wrongdoings once the power is lost from him. Richard III mostly follows his manipulative nature as he actively forges his path toward power, no matter what is takes or what despicable acts get him to his goal. This contrasts Richard II, who is overly confident in his divine right to his royal title. In terms of how both plays provide commentary on power and kingship, Richard III sees kingship as something to attain and control, while Richard II sees kingship as something inherent and gifted by God. While Richard II rules through assumed loyalty and tradition, Richard III actively challenges that loyalty by attacking order from the inside out.