King John

This is Shakespeare's only play about an early king, one who bore no part in the Wars of Roses, which form the basis for the rest of the histories. It is rarely performed.

I have never seen the play, but would like to. As for the historical King John, he reigned from 1199 to 1216. His father was Henry II (reigned 1154-1189), his older brother Richard I, known popularly as the Lionheart (reigned 1189-1199). John was not as bad as history has made him out to be, mostly because Richard was nowhere near as good as that same history has made him out to be.

However, John did not come by his throne in complete honesty. He was the youngest son of Henry II. After Richard I was the middle brother Geoffrey who had conveniently died in 1186 and had inconveniently left a young heir named Arthur who stood between Uncle John and the crown. Inconvenient, but not immortal. Arthur's sudden and sad demise in 1203 left the way clear for John to take permanent possession of the crown. A precedent was set -- for history and for Shakespeare (see Richard III and Hamlet).

The rest of Shakespeare's histories concern the events of the Wars of the Roses, which ended with the reign of the Tudors.

Born 1367, Reigned 1377-1399

Richard was not a "weakling" in the traditional sense. Even as a lad of only 14 he faced down the rebels in the Peasants' Revolt, risking personal danger when the rebel leader Watt Tyler was killed during the encounter. Richard stood his ground and convinced the rebels to return home.

Richard managed for some 20 years, but was never the powerful monarch he needed to be. He lavished attention on certain court favorites, leading some to suspect that he had his great grandfather's (Edward II) "vice" -- being homosexual. Richard was deposed and murdered in 1399 by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, the son of Edward III's younger son John of Gaunt.

Give me the crown. Here, cousin, seize the crown.
Here, cousin, On this side my hand, and on that side thine.
Now is this golden crown like a deep well
That owes two buckets filling one another,
The emptier ever dancing in the air,
The other down, unseen, and full of water.
That bucket down and full of tears am I,
Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.
Richard II, Act 4: Scene 1

Richard was not the first king to meet a sorry end at the hands of a usurping relative. Edward II had been deposed by the Queen and her lover, then brutally murdered.

For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground,
And tell sad stories of the deaths of kings --
How some have been deposed, some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed,
Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed,
All murdered. For within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court; and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be feared, and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit
As if this flesh which walls about our life
Were brass impregnable; And humoured thus,
Comes at the last, and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall; and farewell king!
Richard II, Act 3: Scene 2

The king was "God's annointed" -- to defy him was as much heresy as treason. To depose and murder God's annointed was no small matter. Bolingbroke had challenged the sanctity of the crown in order to gain it. Now he would live the rest of his life with the knowledge that he, as king, could not be considered sacred.

Nor could his son.

Nor could his grandson.

It was the bitter legacy that lay beneath the Wars of the Roses:
Once a crown has been seized by force, it can only be retained by force.

How many thousand of my poorest subjects
Are at this hour asleep?
O sleep, O gentle sleep,
Nature's soft nurse,
how have I frighted thee,
That thou no more wilt
weigh my eyelids down
And steep my senses in forgetfulness?...
Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose
To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude,
And in the calmest and most stillest night,
Deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
Henry IV, Part 2, Act 3: Scene 1

Born 1366, Reigned 1399-1413

Bolingbroke became Henry IV, an able administrator, but one haunted by how he gained his crown. ("My fair son, what right have you to it? for you well know that I had none.") That unease was passed to his son, Prince Hal, who after a riotous youth ascended the throne in 1413 to become Henry V. Neither man could be entirely free of the dead Richard whose murder haunted them. Henry IV wanted to lead a crusade to the Holy Land to expiate his guilt, but had to settle for a death in the 'Jerusalem' chamber.

Cheerly to sea; the signs of war advance.
No king of England if not king of France!
Henry V, Act 2: Scene 2

Born 1387, Reigned 1413-1422

Henry V immediately started a war with France, to deflect any further criticism of how the Bolingbroke line came into power, as well as to continue the claim to the French throne made by his great-grandfather Edward III.

The planned invasion was nearly scuttled by a plot to murder Henry, but the conspirators -- one of whom was Richard, Earl of Cambridge, (mentioned above) -- were caught and beheaded. Although his own cousin had tried to kill him, Henry's cruelest revenge was reserved for Lord Scroop, his dearest friend and confident. Scroop was sentenced to the extended miserable execution reserved for potential regicides.

I will weep for thee;
for this revolt of thine, methinks,
is like another fall of man.
Henry V, Act 2: Scene 3

Olivier's film removed the traitors scene in accordance with Britain's wartime sympathies. Branagh's 1990 film returned it and it remains one most powerful scenes.

Like his father before him Henry was obsessed by the murder of Richard II. Even on the eve of his great victory at Agincourt (October 25, 1415) Shakespeare gives words to Henry's inner torment.

Not today, O Lord, O not today,
think not upon the fault
My father made in compassing the crown!
I Richard's body have interred new,
And on it have bestowed more contrite tears
Than from it issued forced drops of blood;
Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay,
Who twice a day their wither'd hands hold up
Toward heaven, to pardon blood; and I have built
Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests
Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do;
Though all that I can do is nothing worth,
Since that my penitence comes after all,
Imploring pardon.
Henry V, Act 4: Scene 1

Henry's spectacular victory over the far superior French force was to him stunning proof that God endorsed his kingship and his claim to the French crown. Of course, Henry did not so much win as the French lost, being over-armoured in a muddy field. Most of the French dead had no wounds, having drowned in the mud.

Shakespeare, like so many writers improving their country's war statistics, vastly understates the number of English dead, although the number of French dead is probably about right. Henry is believed to have lost a "few hundred" men, not the "five and twenty" Shakespeare claims.

One must also add to the number of French dead one of the more shameful acts that is only sparingly covered in the play. Fearing that the French would regroup for another charge and realizing that the number of prisoners now outnumbered the available men to guard them, Henry ordered that any prisoner below the rank of duke be killed immediately.

But, hark! what new alarum is this same?
The French have reinforc'd their scatter'd men.
Then every soldier kill his prisoners;
Give the word through.
Henry V, Act 4: Scene 6

The seeming justification for such a shameful breach of chivalry was the slaughter of the boys with Henry's baggage train, which is excellent theatre, but there is no record of it actually happening. It was the rumor of a French attack at the rear of Henry's forces that spurred the king to order the deaths of the prisoners.

Brannagh's film of Henry V did not include this incident.

Henry claimed Catherine of Valois, a French princess, as his bride. Their son became king after the early death of his father in 1422. Henry VI was all of 9 months old and history began its dreadful repetition.

Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night!
Henry VI, Part 1, Act 1: Scene 1

Born 1422, Reigned 1422-1461 and 1470-1471

Henry VI's biggest problem with the crown was that he really didn't want it. His piety and gentle disposition made him more suited to a monastery than a throne. In addition, his genetic inheritance was against him -- his maternal grandfather, King Charles VI of France was known as Charles the Mad for obvious reasons. The insanity also manifested itself in Henry who spent long periods of his reign lost in his own mental realm, leaving the rule of his kingdom to his council or to his powerful Queen, Margaret of Anjou.

Against Henry VI rose the line of Edward III's third son Lionel of the Yorkist branch. The Wars of the Roses raged throughout Henry's reign, mostly with Queen Margaret and her cronies in command of the Lancastrian forces. The Earl of Warwick (the 'Kingmaker') put his considerable talents to the Yorkist cause.

Meanwhile, Henry V's widow had remarried her Welsh Master of Horse, Owen Tudor (I said this was like a soap opera).

The chief claimant was Richard, Duke of York, the son of the man executed in 1415. After Richard's death in battle in 1460, his claim fell to his son Edward. Edward deposed Henry in 1461 and was in turn deposed by Henry (or rather the forces of Queen Margaret and Warwick) in 1470. Edward's marriage (see below) scuttled the plans of Warwick to make a royal alliance for Edward with France. In anger Warwick delivered his forces and talents to the Lancastrians. Henry's second reign lasted about a year when he was deposed again in favor of Edward, after the death in battle of both Warwick and Henry's only son Prince Edward (yes, I know they are all named Richard, Henry and Edward -- confusing, isn't it?). Henry VI subsequently died (murdered?) in the Tower. The unfortunate conclusion is that saintly princes make terrible kings and nice guys often do finish last.

Even Henry, gentle and pious soul, felt that the crown was not really his because it had come into his family through the murder of a king.

...Tell me, didst thou never hear
That things ill got had ever bad success?
And happy always was it for that son
Whose father for his hoarding went to hell?
I'll leave my son my virtuous deeds behind;
And would my father had left me no more!
For all the rest is held at such a rate
As brings a thousand-fold more care to keep
Than in possession any jot of pleasure.
Henry VI, Part 3, Act 2: Scene 2

Born 1442, Reigned 1461-1470 and 1471-1483

The rise of Edward, son of Richard, Duke of York, is told through the history of Henry VI and therefore he gets only a small part at the beginning of Richard III, dying soon into the plot.

Born 1470, Never Reigned and Never Crowned, died after 1483

Edward IV's son, Edward V, was about 12 years old. He had a younger brother, Richard, and a number of sisters, one of whom married Henry Tudor. Shakespeare includes little Edward in Richard III.

Born 1452, Reigned 1483-1485

Slave, I have set my life upon a cast
and I will stand the hazard of the die. ...
A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!
Richard III,
Act 5: Scene 5

Richard, Duke of Gloucester, one of the most maligned characters ever created, owes most of his bad reputation to Tudor propaganda. His place in history is assured because of the popularity of the play, but the portrayal of a monster who murders his brother, his wife, his little nephews, and a host of others was fully the creation of the victor of Bosworth Field whose claim to the throne was far from solid. Henry Tudor needed to remove any doubt about his right to rule and his supporters laid the blame on his defeated (and conveniently dead) predecessor for every "unusual" death in both royal houses for the preceding twenty years.

The play is based on historical events, but it is not the history itself and should not be confused with facts of the 15th century. It is certainly possible in this far-removed time to enjoy the play without worrying about its accuracy, but there are those who hold strong opinions about the historical Richard and advance the cause (however belated) of his innocence. Even as we still search for the truth of more recent crimes, such as the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations, the investigation of the long cold trail of who killed the "Princes in the Tower" continues.

The Story So Far

Edward IV had two younger brothers -- George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Edward also had a Queen, Elizabeth Woodville Grey, a widow of no great background with grown sons by her first marriage, as well as a pack of other family members, all eager for power and anything else they could squeeze out of the royal marriage. Elizabeth's first husband had died in battle in 1461 -- fighting on the side of Henry VI. It is safe to say that none of these people liked any of the others.

Bluntly put, Edward got the hots for this widow. She refused to become his mistress, so he married her in 1464 and kept the union a secret for five months. But secret marriages were a sort of habit with Edward. After his death it was revealed that he had been previously "contracted" to one Eleanor Butler, said union having never been formally acknowledged nor dissolved. The result was that his children by Elizabeth were of dubious, if not outright illegitimate, issue and were subsequently barred from the succession. Richard was proclaimed king by Act of Parliament and by popular outcry.

And dear Clarence! In Richard III Shakespeare makes him out as sweet and bumbling, at a complete loss over his arrest for treason. Edward has been listening to evil Richard and harkening to a prophecy about a man whose named begins with "G," as in George (of course, we all know that "G" really stands for Gloucester) -- a prophecy that was revealed much earlier in Henry VI. If one were to view Richard III on its own without any knowledge of Henry VI, parts 1-3 one would be led to believe that King Edward's doubt of Clarence was unreasonable and clearly the result of the poisonous influence of Richard.

But in Henry VI Shakespeare's Clarence rebelled against his brother, siding with Warwick on behalf of Henry VI. History supports this -- poor Clarence had it coming for repeated rebellions and deceit. He and his children were forever barred from the succession. King Edward then had Clarence arrested and secretly executed on February 18, 1478. There is no evidence that Richard had anything to do with either event. He wasn't even in town at the time. He did plead with the King for Clarence's life (even his enemies said so) and later he made Clarence's son heir to the throne.

Shakespeare's Sources

Queen Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII, based his shakey claim to the throne on relationships that involved illegitimacy and double adultery, and his ascension was by right of arms. He was a Lancastrian, almost completely unknown to the English people when he and his mercenaries charged out of the mists of Wales, killed Richard III at Bosworth, and took the crown.

The accepted "contempory" history, the one on which Shakespeare based his play, was a manuscript found in the papers of Sir Thomas More. More's manuscript has been taken as an "eye-witness" account of the events of 1483, although More himself was but five years old at the time. It remains the basis for the official history although it is mostly hearsay, written some thirty years after the death of Richard III.

So, where did Sir Thomas get his material?

Probably from John Morton, Bishop of Ely under Richard III and later Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII -- which says something about Morton's political ties. Morton was one of Richard's bitterest enemies, a man who had been caught plotting to kill Richard. He escaped from prison and went to France where he helped Henry raise an army.

Thomas More as a young man served in Morton's household and later may have transcribed Morton's history of Richard III. Although few would credit Morton as an unbiased observer, Sir Thomas More's saintly reputation and the fact that he later died for his principles suggests a man who would not falsify the truth for political gain. While More may not have knowingly lied, his source most certainly would have. And it would not have been in More's best interest to do any additional research into other rumors that may have been current. Queen Elizabeth Woodville (Henry VII's mother-in-law) was forcibly retired to a convent only 18 months into Henry's reign for posthumously "being nice to Richard," according to Polydore Virgil, Henry's paid historian.

Without going into every detail of this 600 year old who-done-it, here are some of the important differences between Shakespeare's play and the contemporary sources of 15th century:

Shakespeare makes no mention of Richard's real domestic life. He and Anne had a son, a fragile child who died in 1484. Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, was passed over as heir in favor of Clarence's son, the Earl of Warwick. Anne Neville died in 1485, not long before Richard's death at Bosworth.

To contact the defenders of the historical Richard, the one that may have existed before the Tudors got hold of him, contact the Richard the Third Society

More information may be found at The Unofficial Richard III Enthusiast's Homepage which is where I nicked off with the family tree above and two royal portraits.

For those who still believe in books, Josephine Tey's novel The Daughter of Time is an excellent resource for those interested in the details behind the revisionist view of Richard III.

Shakespeare finished up his histories with a final play about Henry VIII, the most immediate forbear of his royal patrons, Elizabeth I and James I (aka James VI of Scotland). I have included some information about Henry VII, who was given such a glorious sendoff at the end of Richard III that no doubt, Shakespeare didn't want to spoil the effect with the details of the first Tudor's reign.