The Demise of Primogeniture Successions and the rise of Legitimacy through Moral Character in The Tragedy of King Richard III

Fiona Emes
9954578884
Professor M. Sergi
ENG331H1S
April 16^th, 2014

The Demise of Primogeniture Successions and the Rise of Legitimacy through Moral Character in The Tragedy of King Richard III        

In Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays, by Dr. Katie Pritchard, Pritchard outlines how in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Richard III, Shakespeare offered his audience at the time, as well as those of his readership today, a dissertation of legitimacy concerning a sovereign’s right to rule. Pritchard delves into how Shakespeare’s dramatization of King Richard III demonstrates the flaws in ‘divine’ primogeniture successions to the throne (Pritchard, 83).  In this paper I will both deconstruct and deepen Pritchard’s argument that Richard’s pursuit of the throne is a Shakespearian dramatization, which highlights the irrelevance of legitimate birth, and underlines the necessity of a good and moral character in order to rule as Sovereign. (Pritchard, 83)” I will outline how Richard the Duke of Gloucester purposefully sidesteps the traditional means of gaining power in England to become King Richard III, through malevolence such as conspiracy and murder. These acts undermine the notion of a divine sovereign, as they do not demonstrate the workings of a God, but of a man. I will use Richard’s means of eluding the customary changeover and passage of power in England as a demonstration of what I shall call ‘illegitimate legitimacy’; or the gaining of the throne through corporeal, non-divine acts to ensure his place on the thrown. Pritchard also discusses how the Duchess of York, Richard’s mother, also rejects Richard in a manner that asserts him as illegitimate, regardless of his noble birth, reinforcing the notion that birth is irrelevant over character regarding one’s ability to rule (Pritchard, 87). Next, I will focus on Act V.3 to further Pritchard’s thesis that Shakespeare’s dramatization of The Tragedy of King Richard III undermines supposed legitimate births. In this act we further ascertain the stark contrast between the moral character of Richard Duke of Gloucester, and the Earl of Richmond (who possesses honourable qualities, but whose birth is determined as illegitimate). This furthers Pritchard’s assertions that both legitimate and illegitimate births are dramatized as irrelevant, with Shakespeare ascertaining that illegitimate births are in fact an invalid means of determining what marks a worthy King or Queen (Pritchard, 83).

To begin, in Act.1.1. the audience is first met with a monologue from Richard Duke of Gloucester, regarding the plans he intends to carry out in order to gain the throne. Richard says,

“Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous...
 To set my brother Clarence and the king
   In deadly hate the one against the other…
      This day should Clarence closely be mewed
About a prophecy which says that G
                        Of Edwards’s heirs the murderer shall be.” (1.1.32-40)

The above excerpt from Richard’s monologue sets several concepts in motion that we see throughout the play. First, by purposely laying plans in order to gain the throne, Richard undermines the notion that the Sovereign is Sovereign through divine choosing. Richard III was originally known as the Duke of Gloucester, and with several brothers born before him, his late birth entailed a highly improbable securement of the throne. By sidestepping the traditions of English nobility, Richard makes his way to the throne through illegitimate means such as the ensuring the murder of his brother Clarence (1.4.269-270). This determines Richard as illegitimately legitimate when he takes the thrown, as although he is legitimate by birth, he takes the throne through illegitimate, malice, and non-divine means. By taking the throne illegitimately, Shakespeare’s dramatization of Richard purposely challenges the status quo of divine leadership by birth, as it ascertains persons of nobility are non-divine, and that it is possible for their personal choices, behavior, making them capable of changing their social mobility (Pritchard, 84). Furthermore, illegitimate legitimacy challenges the audience to consider the ethical behaviour of those of royal birth, casting the actions of those of ‘legitimate birth’ into moral question.

The notion of divinity is further mocked in Richard’s plot to lay a prophecy. The imaginary prophecy “which says that G, Of Edwards’s heirs the murderer shall be (1.1.39-40)” does two things simultaneously. First it brings the notion of prophecy, which is interconnected with divinity and divine birth, into question. It demonstrates man’s ability, including those of royal descent, to fabricate supposed truths or divine prophecy in their own favour, thus creating a sense of falsehood around their divine right to rule. Second, Shakespeare demonstrates that men, including those men considered to rule by divine right, as foolish.  We find out from Clarence that King Edward quickly believes the prophecy that Richard has concocted, with Edward even stating that “…a wizard told him that by G his issue disinherited should be (1.1.56-57)” As a reader or as an audience member we are aware that the fabricated prophecy came to King Edward from Richard, which demonstrates the naivety of King Edward to believe any matter coined as prophecy to be unequivocally true. Also, it shows that the King believes wholeheartedly in his right to rule as divine, as he believes the prophecy as equally divine, even believing the lie so deeply that he ascertains that the knowledge came to him from a wizard, rather than from Richard, which once again the audience knows it did. Edward is quick to believe in the tales of prophecy and divinity, rather than to question the moral character of Clarence; a brother who has always loved him. Both the readers and audience are able to see that the prophecy and perhaps even the throne is not divine but created in the minds of man, Shakespeare is further reinforcing the possibility of untruth in both divine power and prophecy.

            Pritchard also notes how Shakespeare begins to markedly dramatize Richard’s illegitimacy through the descriptions of Richard by his mother, the Duchess of Gloucester (Pritchard, 87).  Although Richard is not a bastard, the Duchess characterizes him as such, and rejects him as if he were not born of noble birth (Pritchard, 87). The Duchess describes Richard as a “false glass” (2.2 53) “...in which she sees her [own] disgrace.”(Pritchard, 87). Pritchard notes the relationship between a ‘false glass’ and the “illegitimate and counterfeit” (Pritchard, 87). These metaphors distinctly depict Richard as illegitimate regardless of his birth, once again calling into question legitimacy itself. With the Duchess of York seeing nothing in Richard other than her own downfalls, she ultimately ascertains that Richard does not possess any legitimate qualities (2.2.53-54). Without any favourable qualities, Shakespeare dramatizes Richard as illegitimate, based on his pitiable ethical merits and exploits.

            In Act V.3, both Richard III and the Earl of Richmond are visited in their sleep by the ghosts of those Richard has killed to seize the kingdom and the throne. All of those murdered by Richard of Gloucester in order to seize the throne as King Richard III: Prince Edward, Clarence, Lord Hasting, Lady Anne, Henry VI, Rivers, and Vaughn separately exclaim “despair and die! (V.3. 127,136,141,144),” to King Richard III in his sleep, with the ghost of Grey also exclaiming “let thy soul despair! (V.3.142). By contrast, all the ghosts also visit the Earl of Richmond, whose birthright is less legitimate than King Richard III. However, unlike King Richard III, the Earl of Richmond’s moral character is not tarnished by malevolence, deceit, and conspiracy. Whilst simple threats of hatred are predominantly set against Richard, the ghosts speak to the Earl of Richmond with remarks to his character and in turn his legitimacy to conquer Richard and become King. For example, the ghost of Henry VI speaks to the Earl of Richmond in his sleep to offer him strength. Henry VI says,

“Virtuous and holy, be thou conqueror…
Live and Flourish! (V.3.129-131)”

With no remark or care for the Earl’s birthright, Henry offers his support regardless of the Earl of Richmond’s ‘illegitimacy’ as he is “virtuous and holy (V.3.129)”. Pritchard’s thesis that Shakespeare dramatizes how character is superior to birth is once again ascertained in the rejection of Richard as King, and the acceptance and support of The Earl of Richmond to defeat Richard and take the throne.

Furthermore, the ghost of Lord Hastings greets Richmond in his sleep and also asserts that Richmond must defeat Richard and become King. The Ghost of Lord Hasting’s says,

                        “Quiet untroubled soul, awake, awake!
                                    Arm, fight, and conquer, for fair England’s sake!”

This not only deeply and significantly contrasts Lord Hastings ushers of “bloody and guilty, guiltily awake (V3.147)” to Richard, it also asserts that the individual that is without blame or murder is the one that owns the right to rule.

            The death of Richard at the end of the play, and the knowledge that the Earl of Richmond will be crowned King is the culmination of all previous actions by both men. Whilst Richard possessed the right to rule, he murdered and deceived his family callously in order to take the throne, and thus failed to possess the moral character it takes to lead England. By contrast, the Earl of Richmond would not originally have had a right to the throne, but his qualities and character made him a suitable leader who possessed the ability to “unite the White Rose and the Red (V.5. 19)”; to marry a broken England under the Tudors (Pritchard, 193).

            In conclusion, Pritchard aptly writes that “…because Richard usurps his kingdom, he cannot make it his own: instead he apes the structure of legitimate society; his is a counterfeit (‘illegitimate’) version of a true reign. (Pritchard, 88)” Pritchard’s article ascertains that Shakespeare dramatizes the illegitimate legitimacy of Richard in order to focus the audience and the readers on the flaws of supposed divine birthright, as well as challenging both an audience and readers to determine and define the legitimacy of a leaders right to rule; whether through good character traits or through the supposed legitimacy to rule by one’s birth and blood-line . Shakespeare seeks to deconstruct the notion of noble birthright by centering his play around Richard, a character with malevolent qualities who sidesteps the traditions of gaining the throne through conceit and murder. Such qualities undermine the notion of divine ruling. Having Richard gain the throne through killing his own family and yet remaining ‘legitimate’ by birth, demonstrates the flaws in ‘divine’ primogeniture successions to the throne (Pritchard 83).  The prophecy which Richard falsely crafts further engages the audience to ascertain that a member of the nobility, who has a ‘legitimate’ birth, is capable of creating a plot to seize the throne through human means, rather than divine.  As well, by demonstrating the willingness of King Edward to believe the lie of the prophecy, divine rule itself is brought into disregard since the audience is fully aware that the prophecy is a lie in order to benefit Richard, and ensure the murder of his brother Clarence. With the audience aware of Richard’s depravity, and Edward not, Edward is cast into a light of naivety as to believe in the fictional prophecy. Edward immediately trusts the system of divine rule and prophecy in which he is embedded in, rather than to trust in the moral character of his brother Clarence who has always loved him.  Pritchard highlights Richard’s mother’s qualms regarding Richard. By coining him a “false glass”(2.2.53), the Duchess indicates her own son’s illegitimacy regardless of his birth, regarding his stake in the bloodline irrelevant due to what she sees as a man filled only with downfalls (Pritchard, 87). The Duchess’s words challenge the audience to consider the corrupt behavior of Richard, casting the actions of those of ‘legitimate birth’ once again into question. In Act V.3 we are subjected to viewing the stark contrast between the guilty King Richard III and the guiltless Earl of Richmond. Although the Earl of Richmond does not hold the same birthright as Richard, he possesses good and moral qualities. The Earl of Richmond’s defeat of King Richard III affirms Pritchard’s assertions that Shakespeare dramatizes birthright as an irrelevant factor in ones right to rule; that it is in the good and character and the competence of a man that gives him the right to serve England as Sovereign, asserting that illegitimate births are in fact an illogical means of determining what makes a suitable King or Queen.

Works Cited

Pritchard, Katie. Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays.
            Diss. Escholar. Manchester University. 2011. Web. April 14. 2014. 82-95, 193.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. Ed. Peter Holland. 

 N.p.: Penguin, 2000. Print.