Richard III- William Shakespeare
1. The chief attraction of Richard III is the presentation of innocence under threat.’ Using your
knowledge of the play as a whole, show how far you agree with this view of the play
Richard III. Remember to support your answer with reference to different interpretations.
2. Discuss the importance and dramatic effects of dreams and dreaming in the play Richard
III.
3. ‘Richard’s most interesting relationship is not with the other characters, but with the
audience.’ How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the play?
4. ‘Richard’s followers are merely brutal and selfish.’ How far and in what ways do you agree
with this view of the roles of Richard’s supporters in Richard III ?
Extract from a mark scheme:
The answer is in itself a response to a critical view, but may make reference to the views of
other audiences and readers and discuss changing critical views of the play over time.
Answers should be informed by an understanding of contexts, which can include both
historic and contemporary performances of the play. The question invites the candidates
to consider and compare the roles of these characters in the play. Some of the ‘followers’
are little more than henchmen, for instance the unsavoury triad in Cibber’s adaptation and
Olivier’s film (‘the cat, the rat and Lovel the dog’). Some may feel that, while Ratcliffe and
Lovel seem merely brutal and selfish, Catesby develops some sympathy for his
(misguided?) loyalty to Richard during his nemesis at Bosworth. Other minions are likely to
provoke more genuinely divided verdicts: the two murderers, for instance, one invariably
troubled with ineffectual conscience. Tyrrel, too, the disaffected and desperate gentleman,
may kill the ‘babes’, but offers in possible penance an exquisite lyric commemorating their
physical beauty. The most likely figure to command attention is the ‘deep revolving witty
Buckingham’, a royal duke with a strong managerial touch, supplying the energy and
eloquence Richard lacks in the Guildhall scene, and organising his mock-pious appearance
between two bishops. Richard and Buckingham both view themselves as actors and artists,
poets of human emotion, ‘murdering their breath in middle of a word’ when necessary to
change a scene or win a kingdom. Buckingham’s trick is generally to seem sophisticated
rather than brutal, though his coveting of the Earldoms of Hereford and Derby is selfish
enough. Buckingham’s appearance in the Ghost scene may well receive attention.
Contextual interest might involve the nature of contemporary Courts, the ‘brutality’ of the
Wars of the Roses, and corrupt lifestyles proving more rewarding than honest ones at the
time. The indicative content is intended to indicate aspects of questions which may feature
in candidates’ answers. It is not prescriptive, not is it exclusive; examiners must be careful
to reward original but well-focused answers and implicit as well as explicit responses to
questions.
, 5. ‘Family ties count for nothing in the world of Richard III.’ How far and in what ways do you
agree with this view of the play?
6. ‘Buckingham is not just Richard’s sidekick – he’s an important character in his own right.’
How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the role of Buckingham in Richard
III?
7. ‘Loyalty does no one any good in the world of Richard III.’ How far and in what ways do you
agree with this view of the play?
The answer is in itself a response to a critical view, but may make reference to the views of
other audiences and readers and discuss changing critical views of the play over time.
Answers should be informed by an understanding of contexts, which can include both
historic and contemporary performances of the play. Loyalty in the world of the play may
be understood in many ways: as being truthful to obligations of love and duty to one’s
sovereign, one’s country, family or to one’s word. The ‘loyalty’ of many characters in the
play does not serve them or others well. Edward IV’s ‘good day’s work’ in reconciling the
troubles at Court only reveals how many troubles there are, while his favouritism towards
the Queen’s kindred only makes them more vulnerable. Buckingham’s loyalty to Richard
always seems partly pragmatic. Eventually Richard deceives him over the promised
Dukedoms, next deprives him of his life. Alternatively, candidates may argue that Stanley’s
cautious distancing from Richard shows how his loyalty to both England and his family (his
being Richmond’s step-father) does serve him and England well as the play closes with
Richmond victorious. The family and clan loyalties of the Duchess, Elizabeth and
(especially) Margaret (particularly in Act 4 Scene 4) have been seen (particularly by
feminist critics) as expressions of female loyalty and resistance. Of course candidates may
observe, perhaps in passing, that, conversely, disloyalty does not in the end serve Richard
very well. Abandoning Warwick the Kingmaker leads Clarence to an agony of regret and
self-scrutiny. Henchmen who stick with Richmond at Bosworth (Catesby, Norfolk) earn
nothing for their pains. Margaret celebrates Yorkist suffering as punishment for disloyalty
to the ruling House of Lancaster. The indicative content is intended to indicate aspects of
questions which may feature in candidates’ answers. It is not prescriptive, not is it
exclusive; examiners must be careful to reward original but well-focused answers and
implicit as well as explicit responses to questions.
8. ‘Though clearly very different characters, Clarence and Hastings share a common fate.’
How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the roles of Clarence and Hastings
in Richard III?
9. ‘There is always humour in the cruelty of the play Richard III.’ How far and in what ways
do you agree with this view?
1. The chief attraction of Richard III is the presentation of innocence under threat.’ Using your
knowledge of the play as a whole, show how far you agree with this view of the play
Richard III. Remember to support your answer with reference to different interpretations.
2. Discuss the importance and dramatic effects of dreams and dreaming in the play Richard
III.
3. ‘Richard’s most interesting relationship is not with the other characters, but with the
audience.’ How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the play?
4. ‘Richard’s followers are merely brutal and selfish.’ How far and in what ways do you agree
with this view of the roles of Richard’s supporters in Richard III ?
Extract from a mark scheme:
The answer is in itself a response to a critical view, but may make reference to the views of
other audiences and readers and discuss changing critical views of the play over time.
Answers should be informed by an understanding of contexts, which can include both
historic and contemporary performances of the play. The question invites the candidates
to consider and compare the roles of these characters in the play. Some of the ‘followers’
are little more than henchmen, for instance the unsavoury triad in Cibber’s adaptation and
Olivier’s film (‘the cat, the rat and Lovel the dog’). Some may feel that, while Ratcliffe and
Lovel seem merely brutal and selfish, Catesby develops some sympathy for his
(misguided?) loyalty to Richard during his nemesis at Bosworth. Other minions are likely to
provoke more genuinely divided verdicts: the two murderers, for instance, one invariably
troubled with ineffectual conscience. Tyrrel, too, the disaffected and desperate gentleman,
may kill the ‘babes’, but offers in possible penance an exquisite lyric commemorating their
physical beauty. The most likely figure to command attention is the ‘deep revolving witty
Buckingham’, a royal duke with a strong managerial touch, supplying the energy and
eloquence Richard lacks in the Guildhall scene, and organising his mock-pious appearance
between two bishops. Richard and Buckingham both view themselves as actors and artists,
poets of human emotion, ‘murdering their breath in middle of a word’ when necessary to
change a scene or win a kingdom. Buckingham’s trick is generally to seem sophisticated
rather than brutal, though his coveting of the Earldoms of Hereford and Derby is selfish
enough. Buckingham’s appearance in the Ghost scene may well receive attention.
Contextual interest might involve the nature of contemporary Courts, the ‘brutality’ of the
Wars of the Roses, and corrupt lifestyles proving more rewarding than honest ones at the
time. The indicative content is intended to indicate aspects of questions which may feature
in candidates’ answers. It is not prescriptive, not is it exclusive; examiners must be careful
to reward original but well-focused answers and implicit as well as explicit responses to
questions.
, 5. ‘Family ties count for nothing in the world of Richard III.’ How far and in what ways do you
agree with this view of the play?
6. ‘Buckingham is not just Richard’s sidekick – he’s an important character in his own right.’
How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the role of Buckingham in Richard
III?
7. ‘Loyalty does no one any good in the world of Richard III.’ How far and in what ways do you
agree with this view of the play?
The answer is in itself a response to a critical view, but may make reference to the views of
other audiences and readers and discuss changing critical views of the play over time.
Answers should be informed by an understanding of contexts, which can include both
historic and contemporary performances of the play. Loyalty in the world of the play may
be understood in many ways: as being truthful to obligations of love and duty to one’s
sovereign, one’s country, family or to one’s word. The ‘loyalty’ of many characters in the
play does not serve them or others well. Edward IV’s ‘good day’s work’ in reconciling the
troubles at Court only reveals how many troubles there are, while his favouritism towards
the Queen’s kindred only makes them more vulnerable. Buckingham’s loyalty to Richard
always seems partly pragmatic. Eventually Richard deceives him over the promised
Dukedoms, next deprives him of his life. Alternatively, candidates may argue that Stanley’s
cautious distancing from Richard shows how his loyalty to both England and his family (his
being Richmond’s step-father) does serve him and England well as the play closes with
Richmond victorious. The family and clan loyalties of the Duchess, Elizabeth and
(especially) Margaret (particularly in Act 4 Scene 4) have been seen (particularly by
feminist critics) as expressions of female loyalty and resistance. Of course candidates may
observe, perhaps in passing, that, conversely, disloyalty does not in the end serve Richard
very well. Abandoning Warwick the Kingmaker leads Clarence to an agony of regret and
self-scrutiny. Henchmen who stick with Richmond at Bosworth (Catesby, Norfolk) earn
nothing for their pains. Margaret celebrates Yorkist suffering as punishment for disloyalty
to the ruling House of Lancaster. The indicative content is intended to indicate aspects of
questions which may feature in candidates’ answers. It is not prescriptive, not is it
exclusive; examiners must be careful to reward original but well-focused answers and
implicit as well as explicit responses to questions.
8. ‘Though clearly very different characters, Clarence and Hastings share a common fate.’
How far and in what ways do you agree with this view of the roles of Clarence and Hastings
in Richard III?
9. ‘There is always humour in the cruelty of the play Richard III.’ How far and in what ways
do you agree with this view?
