Vanessa Di Cesare

Matthew Sergi

ENG331H1S

17 February 2014

The Power Play of Richard and Elizabeth of York

In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Richard’s ability to be manipulative is defined through his attempt to marry Elizabeth of York. In “Richard III’s forelives: rewriting Elizabeth(s) in Tudor historiography,” Allison Machlis Meyer states, “Elizabeth York was recursively formed into an appealing precedent for Elizabeth I’s female rule through the selective imagining of a princely alliance of co-rulers” (Meyer, 156).  In support of Meyer’s position, along with my knowledge of the play, I assert that Richard plans to marry Elizabeth of York in order to use her as a pawn and strengthen his political power. This statement is true because throughout the play, Richard is behaves hypocritically towards others as he strives to fulfill his ambitious desires. In addition to Richard’s aim for superiority, Elizabeth Woodville’s faction attempt to gain power gradually becomes successful. When she finally gives attention to the harm that has been done to her family, Elizabeth learns how she can achieve dominance. The relationship between Richard and Elizabeth Woodville is unstable and it is because of Elizabeth’s enhanced control that Richard suggests to marry her daughter. The play’s ending of Richard not marrying Elizabeth of York and still not claiming authority makes his intentions clear. Thus, it is specifically through Richard’s interest in marrying Elizabeth of York that he believes will bring him closer to ruling the throne.

Richard’s consistent display of malicious behavior is evident through his interactions with others. From the opening monologue, Richard proclaims that his only goal is to be crowned king because he feels insignificant. His methodology does not only involve who he plans to murder, but it establishes the character of a villain which is maintained throughout the duration of the play. Meyer claims, “dialogue assigned to Richard indicates […] the potential to present his manipulation of dynastic succession and to turn public opinion against him” (Meyer, 158). Richard craves ambition and he feels that by being king people will no longer view him as physically weak. Also, Richard is deceptive towards all of the women in the play. An example where Richard degrades women is in act 1.2 when he pressures Lady Anne to be his wife so that he is not alone in his process to gain power. When speaking to her, his word choices reflect a man who is unpromising and disadvantaged, “Lady, you know no rules of charity” (1.2. 68). Even though women hold a weak position in this society, Richard degrades her even more without any consideration of the damage that he has already caused. According to Meyer, “women’s resistance to Richard is measured by their ability to speak about what he has done rather than their ability to limit his power” (Meyer, 175). Both Lady Anne and Queen Margaret freely speak about Richard’s faults but neither of them have the ability to limit his status other than Elizabeth Woodville. Female succession is only viewed through Elizabeth Woodville only because of her husband’s death. As a result of Richard’s repulsive intentions, he does not achieve dynastic succession and continues to carry on a poor reflection in the Elizabethan society.

Richard’s plan to marry Elizabeth of York can be analyzed through Elizabeth Woodville’s decision to take power. As soon as Edward IV dies, Elizabeth acts instantly. Elizabeth is aware of the torment that Richard has caused to her family, killing both of her brothers and wishing negatively upon her husband. In her process to triumph, Elizabeth learns that the only way that a woman can enhance her hierarchical position is to discretely be competitive. Though her plan only involves making decisions and refrains from murder, deception eventually allows Elizabeth to prevail and for Richard to face the opposite. The moment where Elizabeth’s decision is crucial is in act 4.4 when Richard asks her if he can marry her daughter. Meyer considers Elizabeth’s actions “both personal and political.” Not only does Elizabeth strive to attain political dominance, but her decision reflects a maternal fear, considering Richard’s actions towards her family (Meyer, 159). In Elizabeth’s conversation with Richard, she mentions: “When avoided grace makes destiny. / My babes were destined to a fairer death / If grace had blessed thee with a fairer life” (4.4. 219-221). It is clear that Elizabeth is trying to ensure safety for her family’s future. Her ability to not be gullible in front of a man affirms the capacity for female succession in a male-dominated society. Meyer agrees that Elizabeth exhibits an “empowered female voice that ably mobilizes legal discourses usually reserved for men” (Meyer, 159). Elizabeth turns away from using emotions to portray her disapproval and engages in the power of words which ultimately bring an end to the War of Roses. When Elizabeth makes the decision for her daughter to marry the Earl of Richmond rather than Richard, she ensures political and personal safety at the present time and for the future.

The opposing duality between Richard and Elizabeth is a sub-plot of Richard III and accounts for the outcome of the play. There is a wrestle for power between both parties beginning in act 1.3 when Richard accuses Elizabeth and her kinsmen that her husband will die soon. Meyer asserts that Richard “accuses her of ‘womanish forwardness’ […] her intent in taking sanctuary is to bring all the lords in obloquy and murmur of the people” (Meyer, 158). Richard does accuse Elizabeth of such; however, by the end of the play, one can learn to validate the choices that Elizabeth makes and what it brings to both her family and the Elizabethan dynasty. It is also through the opposition between Richard and Elizabeth that one can see the intertwining of human nature and human intent. Even though Elizabeth helps to build peace between Richard and her husband in act 1.3, she becomes untrustworthy further on in the play when she tells her daughter not to marry Richard. Richard and Elizabeth are striving to prevail in this game of ‘survival of the fittest;’ they do not want to be defined by their inferior traits, nor do they want to have a weak status. Hence, it is through Richard’s arrogance and Elizabeth’s desire for revenge that describes both human nature and the purpose behind one’s actions. Elizabeth of York’s marriage to Earl of Richmond, the union of the Lancasters and the Yorks, and the end of the War of Roses prove that Elizabeth’s choices are rational.

In Shakespeare’s Richard III, one can capture all of Richard’s imprudent efforts to claim the throne. I affirm that Richard’s desire to marry Elizabeth of York is not defined by his love for her, but is certainly an attempt to gain power. Through a combination of my beliefs and Alison Machlis Meyer’s perspective, this is true because of Richard’s unpleasant behavior and competitiveness throughout the play, Elizabeth Woodville’s success in attaining power and Richard and Elizabeth Woodville’s opposition. From the intentions of Richard and Elizabeth, it is evident that engaging in deceptive behavior will enable an individual to achieve a dominant position in an Elizabethan society. While exploring further into this topic, it was interesting to see that there was a correlation between Meyer’s points and my research. Out of all of the spiteful attempts that Richard makes, his need to marry Elizabeth of York should be closer examined, as it is one that affects the outcome of the play. After analyzing the research I have done, I wonder if my observations would change if Richard and Elizabeth of York did interact with each other in the play. Richard swears to Elizabeth Woodville that he loves her daughter but there is no evidence of this being true. Despite the fact that he did not interact with her, the play leads to the establishment of a successful hierarchy and an end to the War of Roses.

 

 

Works Cited

Machlis Meyer, Allison. “Richard III’s Forelives: Rewriting Elizabeth(s) in Tudor Historiography.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 26, (2013): 156-183.