To what extent does Shakespeare portray a valid historical image of key characters in
Histories, with particular focus upon “Richard III”, “Henry VI, Part I”, “Henry VI, Part II” and
“Henry VI, Part III”.
Shakespeare is certainly a man who has, through his incredible power with words, managed
to inspire thousands of people. Now, almost four hundred years after his death, he is still a
celebrated playwright and poet, with his plays being performed almost daily at theatres all
over the world. Equally, Richard III and Henry VI are two relatively famous former Kings of
England. Richard III (ruled 1483-1485) is traditionally known as one of the most villainous
Kings ever to rule our country: portrayed as murdering his two nephews, the Princes in the
Tower, and generally being happy to kill anyone in the way of his absolute power. Yet few
know about his work to help the poor, and that actually, he is not the only suspect in the
murder of the Princes: it is to this day an unsolved mystery. Henry VI (ruled 1422-61 and
1470-71), contrastingly, is not as well known, but was a Tudor ancestor, so was celebrated
by Kings like Henry VII and his son Henry VIII. Although he went mad at the end of his reign,
few people know this, thinking that Henry VI led a weak reign for no other reason than his
greater interest in his religion and the Church. Shakespeare, therefore, could well be seen as
being responsible for people holding these views. He is the man who most famously
presented the Kings in these ways, and it is his works that are still popular today. Therefore,
through this project I intend to explore the true validity of Shakespeare’s portrayal of his
leading characters in “Richard III” and the “Henry VI” trilogy, discovering if there is some
degree of truth behind his writings, or whether he merely wrote to impress the unrelenting
Tudor audience of these plays.
Richard III 1
His Life
Richard III was a famous Yorkist King. He lived during the
Wars of the Roses, and was born to Richard Plantagenet,
the third Duke of York and his wife Cecily Neville. He
took over the throne when his brother, King Edward IV
died, being left as Protector, because Edward’s son, King
Edward V was only twelve years old at the time of his
death. There was competition for rule from the
beginning of his short reign, which actually only lasted
from 1483-85. Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s wife,
was from a highly unpopular family who many of the
nobles were jealous of due to their quick rise to power
1
Image: http://www.richardiiiyorkshire.com/
when Elizabeth married Edward. As the historian Charles Ross said, “Elizabeth had nothing
to recommend except her obvious physical attractions. Her rather cold beauty was not
offset by any warmth or generosity of temperament”2. Therefore, it is clear that although
Richard III was an unpopular ruler at the end of his reign, at the beginning he was thought
better than the alternative, Elizabeth Woodville and a Regency Council led by her. Through
his quick and decisive action he became King, with strong allies who sought to help him rise
to the throne. He rewarded those who helped him generously, although he was also quick
to turn against some former supporters, including Lord Hastings who had effectively put him
on the throne, when they began to conspire that Richard was using too much power that he
had no real right to. Equally, he was surprised when his former closest ally, the Duke of
Buckingham, unexpectedly rebelled against him. Perhaps he had got an appetite for reward
and simply wanted more: the causes are still unknown. As Richard’s reign went on it is
undeniable that due to the constant threat of rebellion, he leadership became weaker.
Therefore he was defeated in a battle that could have gone either way, on the field at
Bosworth. He was usurped by Henry Tudor. The main reason for his unpopularity was the
common belief that he killed his nephews, the Princes in the Tower. It is also believed that
he killed his brother, the Duke of Clarence, and obviously he became more unpopular in
giving Hastings and other former supporters an illegal summary execution. Yet these beliefs
are not all definite or founded, and my aim is to investigate the validity of Shakespeare’s
writings on Richard III, with particular reference to these claims.
Shakespeare and Richard III
When Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare, "he was not of an age, but for all time!"3, he
foreshadowed the fact that Shakespeare’s historical writing would influence the future, a
time far more advanced than that of Shakespeare yet still so reliant upon his words. This is
totally reflected in modern views of many historical characters, including Richard III. Thus his
portrayal by Shakespeare has become the standard view that people seem to have have of
him, whether or not it is valid, as proven by the survey I conducted exploring the opinions
people hold about Richard III. After asking thirty people, including a mixture of people of
different ages and sexes, it appeared that the most popular words used to describe Richard
III seemed to be “tyrant”, “evil” and “villainous”, with “child-murderer” even being used in
one instance. It has become normal to not only accept but believe without question the
words of Shakespeare about this man, yet it must be remembered that Shakespeare was
not an Historian but a playwright, and therefore a fictional writer, meaning that his plays are
exaggerated in order to make them more dramatic and therefore more profitable. If
Shakespeare’s plays had been written using exactly what really happened within the events
he depicts, there is no doubt that they would not have sold so well, and they may not even
be famous today. Therefore, to make himself and his plays a success, it is clear that
2
3
Charles Ross, “Edward IV”, 1974
Ben Jonson “Preface to the First Folio”, 1623
Shakespeare had no choice but to exaggerate and make more exciting the Historical Events
he described. Therefore, the people who described Richard III as “evil” or any of the other
rather derogatory terms above seem to have taken the traditional Shakespearean view of
the character, with their claims being clearly unfounded and based upon fiction rather than
fact.
One of the earliest words in “Richard III” used to describe the apparently despicable King is
“devil”, as well as a “murderous villain”4, giving Richard negative connotations from the
offset of the play. He is also often described as a tyrant, which is defined as “a cruel and
oppressive ruler”5 in the “Concise Oxford English Dictionary”, the use of such a word gives
Richard an instantly evil and repelling image. The audience will certainly picture him as a
leader who cares little about his subjects, and rules autocratically and selfishly straight
away. Yet in the case of Richard this can be seen as untrue: especially as he was a
Northerner at heart and very much had a soft spot for the Northern cities like York and
Northumberland, looking after them whenever he could. From a young age Richard was well
known for being a loyal Yorkist, proving himself in battle for Edward VI and the York family.
Edward had often given Richard, who was at the time the Duke of Gloucester, work in
looking after the needs of the North: this was where he was originally from so Richard was a
respected man in these areas. Richard had certainly been, since at least 1471, the dominate
magnate in the Northern areas, so exercised a lot of power there: even in the buildings
controlled by the Church, like the cathedral in York, he spent money and time. So when
Shakespeare portrays Richard III to be a man cruel and oppressive to all, it actually seems
that this is invalid, as his relationship with the Northerners could go as far as being seen as
patriarchal and loving. The King had a two-way relationship with the nobility and gentry in
York, Durham and Northern cities, and had to fight for them within Court to get their
support. The council in York also wrote of its dismay at the overthrow of Richard, although
this was a disputed subject, with not everyone feeling quite the same way. This shows that
although he was more popular in the North, with most loyal Ricardians being also
Northerners, his popularity was certainly not absolute, which is likely why Tudor was able to
overthrow him. It also shows that Shakespeare, who portrays Richard III as unpopular, using
Queen Margaret, the widow of the Lancastrian Henry VI, to describe him as “that foul
defacer of God’s handiwork”6, reflecting that Shakespeare, although completely
exaggerating the hatred of the majority for Richard, was not totally unfounded in his claims,
as there were obviously those who disliked him.
Shakespeare provides a hunchbacked and unattractive image of Richard III: fitting with a
theme of otherness often seen in the less likeable characters in his plays. For instance, in
“The Tempest”, Caliban, one of the clear antagonists in the play, is given the image of being
4
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act I, Scene 3
th
H.W Fowler, F.G Fowler. “Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11 edition revised”. July 2004
6
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act 4, Scene 4
5
inhuman and deformed, not “honoured with human shape”7. Although Richard is at least
human, he is similarly given a repulsive image, reflecting the repulsive personality that
Shakespeare provides his character with. When Shakespeare’s Richard describes himself, he
says “I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling Nature”8,
showing that even the King himself is aware of his unearthly and extremely unappealing
image. “Scarce half made up” makes Richard appear not only deformed in image, but also
deformed mentally: Shakespeare makes him out to be a man not only unappealing image
but also not fully formed mentally, so making Richard seem an unfit monarch. “Deform’d,
unfinish’d” makes Richard III out to be exactly the sort of man that the unsympathetic late
1400’s would have totally misunderstood. The disabled were not looked upon favourably at
the time: they were seen as a burden upon society as they were unable to work or pay
taxes. Although Shakespeare makes out Richard to be severely deformed though, the fact
that he was able to fight in battle from a young age, and continue to do so as he got older,
even in suppressing the Buckingham Rebellions successfully, although this debatably had
more to do with weather conditions than Richards fighting skills, as well as fighting in,
although not surviving, the Battle of Bosworth, demonstrate little disability and more of a fit
young man who was able to go to war to defend himself and his beliefs. Even more so, the
famous line “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”9 actually seems to imply that
Richard was very unlikely to be severely deformed: a hunchbacked man would surely
struggle to ride a horse competently, so Shakespeare seems to have at the least, once more,
exaggerated the condition of Richard III.
Richard III has actually recently become a topic often seen in the news, so is currently a very
interesting figure to be writing about. A body has been found and dug up underneath a car
park in Leicester, which by coincidence is very near the Battlefield of Bosworth, and tests
are currently underway on the bones, to extract DNA and see if it matches that of Richard.
The body itself, however, if it does turn out to be the long lost King, will prove Shakespeare
to be exaggerating the condition of Richard III to some degree. John Stow, an Historian,
described Richard III “of person and bodily shape comely enough, only of very low stature”10
in 1619. Modern interpretations describe him not as unattractive, or exceptionally
attractive, although many make it clear that he lacked in height. The body that was found,
although not certainly being Richard, has been discovered to have severe scoliosis: not quite
as pronounced as that which Shakespeare places upon the countenance of Richard, but still
enough that his back would have been slightly hunched, and one shoulder would have
certainly seemed higher than the other, which could also explain why he was so lacking in
height. The body also has a deformed skull and Richard III was said to be killed by a severe
blow to the head with a hammer, so this could well be the man in question. Shakespeare,
7
William Shakespeare. “The Tempest” Act 1, Scene 2
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act 1, Scene 1
9
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act 5, Scene 4
10
John Stow, http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm
8
however, does not specify as to how Richard III was killed, just making clear his helplessness
upon his death, especially illustrating his desperation for a “horse”, before he disappears off
stage to be announced dead by the “victorious” Duke of Richmond.
Was he a murderer?
It is very much a traditional view held by historians, originally provided by such as
Shakespeare and the Tudor monarchs that Richard III really was an evil and cruel man. Even
at the beginning of the play, in his first speech, Richard III says “I am determined to prove a
villain”11. This is held up throughout the whole play by Shakespeare: it is perhaps even for
dramatic effect that Shakespeare makes Richard such a villain, for without him being so
captivatingly “subtle, false and treacherous”, the play would not be nearly as dramatic or
effective, and Richard would certainly not be one of Shakespeare’s most powerful
antagonists. Indeed, in a 2000 Amanda Mabillard article, she describes him as the second
most notorious Shakespeare villain, only narrowly losing out to “Othello’s” Iago. She shows
a typical view of Richard III, in saying “The tyrannical, morally vacuous Richard III orders his
own brother's execution and the murder of two innocent children because they are
obstacles to his kingly ambition”12. It is a fervent belief of many people that Richard III killed
his two nephews: so Edward V, and Richard, Duke of York, his cousin, the Princes in the
Tower, and some do believe that Richard also ordered the killing of his brother, the Duke of
Clarence. It is likely that Clarence was ordered to death by both Richard and Edward IV for
plotting against the latter, although there are rumours that he was killed by being drowned
in a vat of wine- definitely not the usual method of execution for nobles at the time.
Although there has never been any proof as to whether or not the princes were killed by
their Uncle, and more than five hundred years later it remains one of History’s greatest
mysteries, Shakespeare makes the assumption that Richard undoubtedly killed the Princes.
In a dream, the ghost of Prince Edward, the assumed Edward V, says to Richard “Think, how
thou stabb’dst me in my prime of youth”13, instantly, therefore, giving the audience the
undisputable idea that it was Richard who was responsible for the murders of the two
young Princes. There are in fact three key theories today as to who killed the Princes. It is
highly likely that they were murdered, as Richard III failed to produce them when there was
much bad press and resentment towards him over their assumed murders. However, it was
not necessarily through Richard’s own doing that they suddenly disappeared. They were last
seen not long after Richard, the other Prince, was summoned to join his brother at the
Tower, playing in the grounds together. The three main suspects as to who murdered them,
are: Richard III, of course, the obvious suspect, the Duke of Buckingham, formerly Richard’s
closest ally but soon to rebel against him in his greedy desire for even more power that that
he had already gained, and the more controversial suggestion of Henry Tudor, the Duke of
11
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act 1, Scene 1
Mabillard, Amanda. Top Shakespeare Villains. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000 < http://www.shakespeareonline.com/plays/shakespearevillains.html" >
13
William Shakespeare. “Richard III” Act 5, Scene 3
12
Richmond. The third and final, Henry Tudor, is seemingly the least likely suspect, as if the
Princes had still been alive when he inherited the throne, he could have used this to his own
advantage. However, he could have, in his quest to become King, had them murdered in
order to damage further the reputation of Richard. The answer to this mystery is still
unknown, and probably always will be, but it remains true that Shakespeare takes none of
the debate as to who really murdered the princes into account, assuming instantly that it
must have been the “tyrant” King Richard III, and therefore biasing the audience against the
character, and offering an account that could well be invalid, as this is opinion rather than
fact, and can never be validated.
Henry VI14
His Life
Henry VI was born in 1421 to King Henry V of England and
Catherine of Valois, a French Princess and Queen Consort of
England. He was part of a strong Lancastrian lineage, so was
an ancestor of King Henry VII, Henry VIII and the great Tudor
monarchs. He was a child King, inheriting the throne at just
nine months old, and also inheriting, although not without
dispute, the French throne at eleven months old. When he
came of age in 1437, he was able to take over from his
regents and exert his authority in both England and France.
The Wars of the Roses were to begin in his reign, despite him
being a peaceful and pragmatic King. He lost land in France to Joan of Arc, and was seen as
weak King who was unable to prevent the power struggles that began between factions
during his reign. He was married to Margaret of Anjou, and he suffered regular periods of
insanity and madness, which meant that she had to take over towards the end of his reign
and do a lot of ruling for him. He proved inept at war, so Margaret was to take over in
battling against Richard, Duke of York, who became protector during Henry’s first bout of
insanity, but was not willing to give the throne back to Henry when he recovered in 1455,
resulting in the beginning of the Wars of the Roses: the Lancaster versus York battles that
were to go on until 1485, when Henry Tudor usurped the throne from Richard III. These
wars, however, eventually resulted in the collapse of the House of Lancaster for the time
being. He ruled twice: one from 1422 to 1451, and once from 1470 to 71, after which
Edward IV was a successful King until Richard III took over upon his death.
Shakespeare and Henry VI
14
Image- http://www.spendtimeinlondon.com/king-queen.html
Henry VI was famously not only a weak King due to his immense level of piety and desire for
peace over war, but also an ill King. In the early 1450’s, it is known that Henry VI became
mentally ill: he was totally unable to rule England in the condition he was in, so needed
members of the York family, and indeed his wife, to look after his Kingdom for him. Yet
Shakespeare appears to discard the period of time in which Henry was severely mentally ill,
instead focusing on his weakness as a monarch. Henry has been described by the as “a..
man whose interest in government was sporadic”15, showing that he was certainly a weak
monarch, which reinforces Shakespeare’s view that Henry VI was indeed weak as a ruler. Yet
the reasons behind his weakness, for instance, his illness, seem to be ignored by
Shakespeare. To exemplify this, when Henry receives Margaret of Anjou as his wife at court
in England, in “Henry VI, Part II”, this comes at a high price to his country, as he has to give
land previously seized by the English to Margaret’s Father, the King of Naples, much to the
dismay of Henry’s protector, the Duke of Gloucester. The Treaty of Tours which was the
marriage treaty of Henry and Margaret was extremely unfavourable to the English, with no
dowry given to the English, and even making Henry pay for the wedding himself. Yet Henry,
in “Henry VI, Part II”, seemingly unfazed by this, instead just being happy to have won the
“beauteous face”16 of Margaret, so showing little political skill, instead being focused on his
own desires. Indeed, the marriage is described as “fatal” by the Duke of Gloucester, showing
that Shakespeare wanted to blame the French Regent upon the failure of Henry VI’s reign.
Yet in reality, it was not the marriage between Henry and Margaret that caused the Wars of
the Roses to begin and ultimately Henry’s downfall, although it must be said that this
marriage was a contributing factor in the beginnings of the factional rivalry at court, due to
the anger of some over the marriage Treaty, and it was this factional rivalry that did
eventually lead to the outbreak of war.
Early in “Henry VI, Part I”, the Mayor of London describes Henry VI as “virtuous Henry”17,
demonstrating that he was well known for his strong religious beliefs and good character
even at a “tender” age. This coincides with the views of Historians about Henry VI, as it is
widely believed that Henry VI was a very pious man who sought to avoid war where
possible: an early pacifist. As BBC History says, “Henry was a pious man”, showing that he
was extremely virtuous which is why, even as a very young man, people felt that he was
religious and respectable. This makes it look as though Shakespeare blames the weakness of
the leadership of Henry VI on his piety and religion: he was a man more interested in
studying Scripture and praying, and felt that things such as war were fundamentally wrong.
However, during his reign, Henry VI enlisted Polydore Vergil as his chief Historian: the man
who was required to write his history. Most historians have found it easy to write good
accounts of monarchs through time, with at the least a few victories in their reign, as well as
fantastic political and motivational speeches to make them seem a powerful ruler whether
15
BBC History: Henry Vi http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/henry_vi_king.shtml
16
William Shakespeare. “Henry VI: Part II” Act 1, Scene 1
William Shakespeare. “Henry VI: Part I” Act 3, Scene 1
17
they were or not. Yet, as Bertram Wolffe, a twentieth century historian wrote, "His constant
change of plan, regardless of expense, show his impractical nature and lack of steadfast
purpose. His ambition to surpass all other foundations in privileges and grandeur reveals the
ostentatious nature of his piety”18, showing that realistically, Henry VI, according to this
revisionist view, was a man who liked to show off just how pious he was, and relate all his
work back to God and religion. Even Polydore Vergil struggled to find a way to make Henry
VI look good, so used his piety as his redeeming feature. Therefore, although Shakespeare
was right in making Henry VI a pious and religious character, this was not necessarily his
redeeming future, being solely something contemporary historians of Henry VI used in their
quests to make him look a good monarch.
Margaret’s affair with the Duke of Suffolk in “Henry VI, Part II” is one event in the “Henry VI”
trilogy that is almost definitely historically inaccurate. While Margaret did not always get on
with Henry VI, and was likely not always a faithful wife, it also remains true that she did not
have an affair with the Duke of Suffolk, with this event being entirely fictitious and
dramatized for effect. Margaret is depicted by Shakespeare as an evil character, mainly due
to the fact that she is French. In Richard III, for instance, it is she that encourages the brutal
murders of the Princes and feels that the old Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, should suffer if
justice is to be carried out. She seems a highly contrasting character with her weak and
spineless husband Henry, especially in her speech in “Henry VI, Part III”, in which she says,
after her husband refuses to fight against making a decision that is not keen on, “Had I been
there.. the soldiers should have tossed me on their pikes before I would have granted to
that act. But thou preferr’st thy life before thine honor”19. These lines are demonstrative of
the fact that as a character, Margaret is perfectly able to defend what she believes in, unlike
her husband. However, according to many Historical sources, the character of Margaret has
been exaggerated, like many others, by Shakespeare. She was a strong ruler, and absolutely
determined to rule well when her husband fell ill, but whether she had good intentions or
not is a debatable subject. Shakespeare, however, certainly seems to have made her a
character more evil than she was.
Was Shakespeare’s Portrayal of Henry VI and Richard III valid?
Although Shakespeare is undeniably one of the most celebrated playwrights on the planet,
and arguably the most talented writer ever to have lived, as an Historian he is certain not an
accurate source: his plays are meant to be works of fiction, and not true accounts of History.
There are, of course, some aspects of Histories that are completely historically correct: for
instance, Henry VI’s army being defeated by Joan of Arc and Richard III dying on the
battlefield at Bosworth, yet not all the events depicted by Shakespeare are quite as true. For
instance, the chronology of events in, in particular, the “Henry VI” trilogy is not totally
accurate. One of the key events which Shakespeare depicts incorrectly is the involvement of
18
19
Bertram Wolffe http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Henry_The_Sixth.htm
William Shakespeare. “Henry VI: Part III” Act 1, Scene 1
Margaret of Anjou in the Duchess being exiled: when in fact she was exiled years before
Margaret even arrived in England. Shakespeare was certainly an entertainer: Richard III has
always been the favourite Shakespeare character of many surely down to the absolutely
unbelievably evil element of his personality. Therefore, while Shakespeare’s Histories can be
used as a fantastic source of entertainment, they are certainly not to be used with any
Historical fact or accuracy in mind.
Conclusion- Why Was Shakespeare So Biased?
His Audience
It must be kept in mind that Shakespeare was writing for a Tudor audience: in particular the
Queen Elizabeth I. “As soon as the Tudors were gone and it was safe to talk”20, was said by
Brent Carradine, one of the key characters in Josephine Tey’s fictional “The Daughter of
Time”, proving that while Shakespeare was writing, it was not even safe to talk in a
respectful way about a known enemy like Richard III: this would at the least amount to
treachery towards the Queen, and simply could not be done legally. Therefore,
Shakespeare’s writing had to be tailored towards a Lancastrian-favouring Tudor audience, as
is very much demonstrated in the “Henry VI” Trilogy. Henry VI was a King well-known for
going senile at the end of his reign, with his wife and advisors having to take over much of
ruling for him after he broke down. Yet Shakespeare does not portray him at all in this way,
making him out to be totally capable of making his own decisions, just as a weak monarch
who was incapable of making good and worthy decisions. In making a link between Henry VI
and the mentally illness he supposedly suffered from, Shakespeare could be seen as
criticising the lineage of the Tudors, so portraying them as having weak genes. Therefore, it
was better that Shakespeare made Henry a weak monarch, partially because he was
incapable of making good decisions, and equally due to his overly forceful wife. Equally, his
audience probably played a large part in creating the tyrannous character of Richard III: a
hated King by the Tudor’s, he would have been depicted in a bad light by all their Historians,
and therefore Shakespeare would have had little choice but to follow suit. Furthermore, his
sources, such as the Holinshed’s Chronicles for Richard III, and Polydore Vergil, who wrote a
Historical account of Henry VI, were equally biased to write in the mood of the times: Vergil
biased towards making Henry VI look good, while Holinshed had more pressure to make
Richard III a clear political enemy. In all of his Elizabethan plays, it was necessary for
Shakespeare to be extremely careful, as in order to have his plays performed in the places
that would allow him to be increasingly rich and famous, he knew that they had to not only
have the approval of Elizabeth I and the Tudor nobles, but also be enjoyed by them.
Profit and Sales
Most of Shakespeare’s work, though, seems to have been written mainly to not only make
him more money, through sales of tickets to the plays. Therefore, the more dramatic and
20
Josephine Tey “The Daughter of Time” 1951
interesting a play was to its audience, the more tickets it would sell. Equally, the more likely
it was that a play would be popular and sell well, the better places it would be performed in.
So Shakespeare had to write in the most dramatic way possible in order to make himself
money and become more famous as a writer. Therefore, he needed to at the least
exaggerate situations to make them seem more exciting to his audience. Richard III depicted
as an average and dull King, who suffered from unexpected rebellions after rewarding his
loyal supporters too highly, would not make nearly as exciting a play as the “Richard III”
written by Shakespeare. Richard as a terrifyingly strong antagonist makes the audience
interact more with this exciting and illuminating character. Equally, Shakespeare needed a
strong antagonist in “Henry VI”, so exploited the nationality of his already unpopular wife,
due to the xenophobia of the English towards the French. Margaret of Anjou therefore
becomes a wicked woman in “Henry VI”, while in reality she was one of the only people in a
position to take charge of England when Henry became mentally ill, and did so, but
struggled to rule due to the hatred the English towards her and the fact that she was a
woman. However, this would not make as exciting a play as Shakespeare’s version of events,
with Henry’s marriage to this woman being a major contributing factor in the beginnings of
the factional rivalry that led to the Wars of the Roses. Therefore, it is clear that one of
Shakespeare’s main motivations in writing his plays was making it exciting and dramatic
enough that his audience could not only relate to, but interact with his storyline and
characters, going away and continuing to spread the word of his writing. For this reason, it
was completely necessary for Shakespeare to use exaggeration in his Histories, to make the
lives of his Historical key characters appear more interesting.
Bibliography
Baldwin, David. “Richard III” Amberley Publishing, Feb 2012.
Fowler H.W, Fowler F.G. “Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition revised”. July 2004
Jonson, Ben “Preface to the First Folio”, 1623
Lee, Cathy. “AQA History AS: Unit 1 Britain, 1483-1529: Student's Book” Nelson Thornes, May
2008
Ross, Charles. “Edward IV”, University of California Press, 1974
Shakespeare, William. “Henry VI, Part I”, 1592
Shakespeare, William. “Henry VI, Part II”, 1594
Shakespeare, William. “Henry VI, Part III”, 1595
Shakespeare, William. “Richard III”, 1597.
Shakespeare, William. “The Tempest”, 1625
Tey, Josephine. “The Daughter of Time”, Touchstone, 1951
Weir, Alison. “Lancaster and York: the Wars of the Roses”. Vintage, July 2009.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/henry_vi_king.shtml BBC History
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19575558 Watson, Greig. 12th Sept, 2012
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Henry_The_Sixth.htm
http://www.richardiiiyorkshire.com/ Garton, James.
http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/shakespearevillains.html Mabillard, Amanda. 20 Aug,
2000
http://www.spendtimeinlondon.com/king-queen.html