Fiona Emes
9954578884
Professor M. Sergi
ENG331H1S
April 16th, 2014
9954578884
Professor M. Sergi
ENG331H1S
April 16th, 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)
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)”
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!”
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.
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.