Politics and Richard III, Part 2 of 4: George of Clarence
Few people familiar with Shakespeare's works will argue that he wasn't influenced by the politics of his day. In fact, many would argue that the Elizabethan (and later, Jacobean) court was one of the strongest factors determining the outcome of his plays. But even if the political climate of the day wasn't a major player in the outcome of all his plays, it can be seen clearly as a source of the gross historical discrepancies in Richard III. In the following four weeks, we will look at the differences between the historical Richard III and Shakespeare's villainous character and the politics of the late sixteenth century that influenced Shakespeare's portrayal of history. This week, we will look specifically at character of Richard's brother George of Clarence.
If Richard III really was not as Shakespeare imagined him, where did the evil Shakespeare saw in history come from? Probably from many places, but the two characters that historically shared the most qualities with Shakespeare's Richard were the two (ironically) that Shakespeare makes out to be the most noble of the characters: George of Clarence and Henry VII. In this week's article, I want to address the historical character of George of Clarence.
The play opens with Richard orchestrating (sometimes almost omnisciently) the death of his middle brother George by making King Edward suspect George has betrayed him. However, historically, there's no support for the legend that Richard was to blame. George was himself a scheming power-hungry man whose destruction was the consequence of his own actions, and Edward IV was Clarence's sole accuser. In fact, no sources before Sir Thomas More's account suggest that anyone was involved in Clarence's death but Edward. More's deliberately anti-Richard account suggested that maybe Richard had helped in Clarence's murder, though even More does not suggest that Richard orchestrated it himself. Shakespeare himself seems to be the one to whom the legend of Richard's orchestration can be traced.
But if Richard didn't orchestrate Clarence's death, and Clarence was responsible for his manipulative actions, what exactly did George do to cause Edward--his own brother--to have him executed? It began years before the play even begins, and deals with events surrounding the War of the Roses. George betrayed Edward (King of England and head of the Yorkist faction) for the Earl of Warwick (head of the Lancastrian faction). Warwick then was able to take over the throne and forced Edward into exile. Then, just as Edward began to gain power and to prepare to raise forces to take back over the throne, George reinstated his bond with Edward, although the historical evidence suggests this was a result of Clarence's own belief that Edward would regain power. And even though Edward graciously took him back and forgave him his earlier betrayal, George showed only ambition in place of gratitude or loyalty.
Latest Articles