Shakespeare's Richard II - Myth or Reality?

Shakespeare’s representation of England’s medieval monarchs has developed into a 'make or break' situation on their lasting reputations and Richard II is no different. Set in 1398, Shakespeare’s Richard II presents the last two years of the monarch's reign, culminating in his deposition at the hands of Henry Bolingbroke. So how would one describe Richard? ‘Weak’, ‘naive’and ‘irresponsible’ are words that spring to mind, and Shakespeare can take credit in providing a fairly accurate account.

In the first Act, Richard presides over a dispute between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk. The latter is accused by Henry of murdering the Duke of Gloucester, uncle to both Henry and Richard. We also discover that Richard was involved himself! Initially, Richard allows a trial of combat, but then acts impetuously and decides to exile them both. Indeed, the real Richard acted the same way, exiling both Henry and Norfolk, and ordering the murder of his Uncle, whose influence in government he had resented.

Shakespeare continues to depict Richard’s arbitrary actions as he funds his military campaign in Ireland, while squandering money for his own benefit. His reckless policies include burdening the common citizens with heavier taxation and confiscating the lands and money of noblemen, including Henry’s father, John of Gaunt. Therefore when Gaunt dies, Richard subsequently revokes Henry’s inheritance. Similarly, the real Richard enacted various fines and taxes, encroached on affairs in the localities, and confiscated over ⅓ of property belonging to the nobility. Like in the play, this provoked a serious political crisis with Henry returning to England in June 1399.

By alienating all members of society, Richard arrives back from Ireland to find that his support including the Duke of York has whittled away, and flocked to Henry’s side. After fleeing to Flint Castle, where Henry reaches him, Richard finally surrenders and realises that he has been deposed. Yet, Shakespeare now begins to paint Richard in a more sympathetic light and through his despairing monologue, the audience might start to sympathise more with him. Once in London, Richard abdicates in favour of Henry, and is later imprisoned in Pontefract castle.

Richard’s death in Shakespeare’s play comes at the hands of an ambitious noblemen called Sir Piers Exton who, believing that he was following Henry’s orders, executes him. This is despite Henry claiming that he misinterpreted his actions. Again, Richard’s long soliloquy before he dies encourages the audience to question whether Richard deserves his punishment. In reality, it’s widely considered that on Henry’s orders, Richard was starved to death. Like many royal murders however, there isn’t any conclusive proof of this.

So what influenced Shakespeare in writing Richard II?  Well, he drew primarily from Holinshed's Chronicles, a comprehensive history of Britain. This, along with other Tudor sources that Shakespeare relied upon, depicted  Richard’s reign as sowing the seeds for the Wars of the Roses which would tear England apart, until Henry VII came to the rescue at Bosworth in 1485.

It’s also important that at the time of its publication in 1595, Richard II was controversial due to the play’s abdication scene.  Elizabeth I viewed it with stern disapproval which explains why it was missing from the first three editions. Coincidentally, Elizabeth was compared to Richard in the latter part of her reign. She was childless and her decision to not yet name a successor was a pressing concern. She had enacted heavy taxation in 1592-93, and her execution of Mary Queen of Scots was seen as tyrannical. In fact, a rebellion led by the Earl of Essex in 1601 attempted to use the play to gather support from the populace in London. Although the Lord Chamberlain’s Men agreed to perform (after being paid twice their usual fee), it didn’t have the desired effect and the rebellion failed. However, it’s fair to say that Shakespeare’s play did not contain anything that went against the standard views of Richard’s reign. The same views - that Richard was a poor ruler - prevail in the twenty-first century.