Journal 20: Richard and Harry are no different.
What is Harry?
Harry is now King. Harry is power hungry and ready to revamp his kingdom.
What does that do?
Puts Harry in the high almighty position and most likely disrupts the natural order. His obsession over who killed Gloucester causes quite the nuisance for Aumerle. Now that Richard is out of the way, Harry can ask and do what he wants. (Much like Richard did....wonder if that'll be Harry/Henry's downfall as well?) Harry condemns Bishop of Carlisle for pointing out what will happen if Harry becomes king - natural order disruption! Obviously Harry isn't too concerned.
What does it mean?
It means that Harry is going to get rid of Richard. Why should he keep the person he commited treason to around? Harry has exactly what he wanted, the throne. Harry doesn't take into consideration that taking the throne isn't his God given right. Perhaps the natural order will not be kind to Harry?
What is Richard?
Richard is not King. Richard is somber, defeated and would like to go oOr n his way. (Though that is how I read it, I'll have to youtube it.)
What does that do?
Richard giving up the throne disrupts the natural order. This causes Aumerle (it is said "I heard thee say, and vauntingly thou spak'st it, That thou wert caseu of noble Gloucester's death."), Bishop of Carlisle ("My lord of Hereford here, whom you call king, Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford's King; And, if you crown him, let me prophesy The blood of English shall manure the ground,") and others set to trial. It gives Harry all the power to do what ever he pleases. Gives Harry the opportunity to get one last torturous jab (the mirror and reading of crimes) in on Richard and sends him off to the tower.
What does it mean?
There's a new sheriff in town and shit is going to change. And Richard will die.
So Harry doesn't have the God given right to take the throne and Richard doesn't have the God given right to give up the throne. Richard was God as King, so wouldn't that mean his choice to give up the throne was indeed God given? Or is the natural order of things just shot to hell? Are Richard and Harry really any different?
So true. They do turn out to
So true. They do turn out to be two peas in a pod as far as their actions are concerned. The only difference is that Richard is a gutless wanker.
Peas in a pod.
I suppose Richard was kinda a gutless wanker, especially with the way he was portrayed on the clips we were watching on youtube. What I don't understand is, if Richard had Gloucester killed to begin with, why didn't he just have Harry whacked as well? Or poisoned or trampled by a horse...etc. Or was Richard so dense he didn't see it coming? Who knows...
Megan Baeth-Brison
what?
And take away the whole reason for the play? Bradley
Bradley
Sensible reasoning.
It's like when you are watching a scary movie and you're yelling at the stupid character about to get whacked because it is sooooooooooo obvious that it is going to happen! Then there would be no more scary movie is the character hadn't been killed off.
Like asking why Richard didn't just kill Harry, it would make sense, but then obviously there wouldn't be a play... If it did happen, don't you think another guy would take up Harry's mission and off Richard?
Megan Baeth-Brison
stop making sense
Part of the problem, if it is a problem, it's easy to see from the outside what could be done to settle a situation. But Richard already had one person killed. If he had a second killed, that could further alienate his allies, at least his reasonable allies such as the Bishop. Hey may not have wanted to push his luck any further. Bradley
Bradley