Jasmine Young

Shakespeare
November 21, 2016
Confidence is Key
The retelling of the historical lives of King Richard III and King Henry V by Shakespeare
obviously is subject to creative leeway with the accuracy of the stories, nonetheless, the two
kings were perceived very differently by Shakespeares audiences of his days as well as those
who read and see productions of his works in modern times. The two kings are almost polar
opposites in the way they behave as kings as well as their personal ascension to the throne.
Richard sets a goal to be the head of the English monarchy, while Henry was essentially thrust
into that position after the death of his father. In examining the actions of both men in their
respective plays in which they are the title character, there is a major difference they posses that
affects the subjects around them. Despite being more openly criticized and disliked by his
subjects, King Richard III was a much more proactive and self accomplished leader compared to
King Henry V.
It is no secret throughout Richard III, that Richard of Gloucester is disliked by many. It is
his actions and devilish deeds that earn him these harsh feeling that others hold against him.
Lady Anne in scene two verbal attacks him with names such as minister of hell, lump of foul
deformity, hedgehog, murderer, and toad. Yet, because Richard sets goals and pursues his
objectives, he is able to successfully win over her heart by the end of the scene, bringing him one
step closer to the crown. He doesnt allow peoples negative receptions of him to get in the way
of what he is after. Even though he was successful with winning the affections of Lady Anne, he
doesnt find the same outcome with Queen Margaret. Queen Margaret calls him a devil,

Jasmine Young
Shakespeare
November 21, 2016
murdrous villain, cacodemon, dog, elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog, all in Act I,
Scene III alone. Richard never is able to seduce Queen Margaret like he does with Lady Anne,
but he never allows Queen Margaret to stand in his way of becoming king. Even though Queen
Margaret openly accuses Richard by saying, I had an Edward, till a Richard killed him;/ I had a
husband, till a Richard killed him./ Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard killed him;/ Thou hadst
a Richard, till a Richard killed him (IV, iv, 40-44), Richard never allowed her blatant allegations
to restrain him from achieving what he wanted. He found an active way around her campaign
against him to still complete what he set out to do in the first place become the King.
From the very beginning of the play, Richard is upfront with the audience and the goals
which he sets for himself. In one of Shakespeares most famous speeches, Richard is quoted to
say:
And therefore since I cannot prove a lover/ To entertain these fair well-spoken
days,/ I am determined to prove a villain / And hate the idle pleasures of these
days./ Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,/ By drunken prophecies, libels and
dreams/ To set my brother Clarence and the King/ In deadly hate the one against
the other. (I, i, 28-35)
Richard continues on with even more details of his plans to override the system of obtaining the
title of King as the speech continues. He manages to execute the entirety of his plan successfully
and by the fourth act is crowned the King of England. He executes this plan by unmoral means

Jasmine Young
Shakespeare
November 21, 2016
including murdering many noblemen and his nephews, however; he succeeds in what he sets out
to do knocking down any obstacles in his pathway, regardless of the consequences or moral
woes that may be caused in doing so. As a man, and eventually the King, he knows exactly what
he wants and always sets out to get whatever he may want in whatever way he sees fit.
The actions Richard took in his plan to rise to power left him with many people who
feared and/or hated him not the best reaction for someone ascending to the highest political
power. Nevertheless, Richard was very proactive in achieving his goals which can be looked at
as an admiral quality. This quality was not possessed by King Henry V, another one of
Shakespeares less than popular kings.
King Henry V had subjects who disliked him, but nowhere near to the extent that King
Richard III was hated. Henry V rose to the throne after his father usurped it from Richard II so
his direct claim to the throne wasnt debatable, but his familys claim had his subjects divided.
Even with significantly more people supporting him compared to Richard III, Henry V was a
significantly less confident ruler. Time and time again, he would proclaim his lack of certainty
that he knew the outcome of what was to happen. Although he was certainly more realistic in his
frame of mind than Richard, the way Henry V spoke wouldnt evoke confidence in me as one of
his subjects. Throughout the play Henry is quoted saying things such as: Either our history
shall with full mouth/ Speak freely of our acts, or else our grave,/ Like Turkish mute, shall have a
tongueless mouth,/ Not worshipped with a waxen epitaph (I, ii, 230-233), We are in Gods
hand, brother, not in theirs (III, vi, 155), If I live to see it, I will never trust his word after (IV,

Jasmine Young
Shakespeare
November 21, 2016
i, 181), If we are marked to die, we are enough/ To do our country lose (IV, iii, 20-21), and I
know not if the day be ours or no (IV, vii, 76); All of these statements drip with uncertainty.
There is no doubt that Henry V does not show the cocky all-knowing ego that Richard III posses,
however in all of these statements he is talking to men of his and his lack of confidence for
himself and his army is extremely evident. Were I one of Henrys men, I would have a lot of
trouble finding motivation to keep me moving forward positively. Henrys realistic knowledge of
not being all-knowing appears to me as a detriment in his political image of king who is
supposed to install hope, courage, and motivation in his people.
Luckily for Henry V, he ultimately wins the battle, however it does not appear to be due
to his personal achievements. Unlike Richard III who makes his own reality by executing his
personal actions, Henry Vs victory seems to be extremely passive. He prays to God to aid him in
the battles and even admits to his court of men, Take it God,/ For it is none but thine (IV, viii,
105-106), explaining that it was Gods victory and not his own. He essentially tells them that he
did very little to nothing that all the work done was by Gods hands. In the final act of the play,
King Henry has a peaceful counsel meeting with King Charles and other members of both courts
which once again shows his humility yet it seems to highlight his lack of passion to implement
his own plan of action.
Regardless of Richard IIIs significantly lower popularity to that of Henry V, Richard was
able to rise to the heights that he did because he was an active player in his fate unlike Henry.
Henry Vs passive nature did not aid him in his pathway to political power, yet he was still rather

Jasmine Young
Shakespeare
November 21, 2016
successful in winning the battle against France thanks to God, according t him. Even with
Richard being a self-proclaimed villain, I can respect that he took an active role in achieving his
goals.