Skip to content

Richard III Blog Post

As I was watching the movie, I was kept wondering whether Richard III qualifies as a tyrant by the definition we’ve been using. The first part of our definition involves his rise to power. Technically he was legally appointed to the position of Lord Protector, but there was only a need for that role after Richard killed his brother and his son was too young to rule independently. Richard then place his nephews in a prison-like tower to allow for his own rise to kingship. While others may support the action of locking away the nephews, Richard disrupts the proper line of succession an increase in his own power.

Last class we discussed that England defines a tyrant by a leader who infringes on the rights of the English People. We know very little about Richard’s interactions with the common people because we see none of those reactions. This is because he is so consumed with his own affairs and increasing his own personal power that we never see him think about his subjects. Richard III is obsessed with personal interest and personal gain throughout the entire movie, seen throughout his numerous murderous actions. Particularly, murdering Buckingham shows his dedication to accumulating personal power. Buckingham was a loyal follower, supporter, and ally for the first half of the movie, but the moment he showed doubts about Richard and his intentions, he is offed. The only time we see anything besides power-hunger from Richard is when he is haunted by the memories of his victims, yet that does not stop him from venturing into battle.

We can discuss whether we believe Richard is a tyrant by perfect definition, but I think we can all agree that he is a negative leader. He never performs the murders himself, but there is no doubt that he ordered them to be conducted. What disturbed me the most was when he had a man hanged and appeared to be admiring the images of his dead body afterwards. It made him appear remarkably unhinged (which he is to be fair).

Published inUncategorized

3 Comments

  1. Charlotte Moynihan Charlotte Moynihan

    In this post, you point out the difference between the definition of tyrant England uses and the definition of tyrant we discussed last class. This to me highlights the importance in leadership and other disciplines in knowing the terms you’re working in and making sure your work fits those definitions.

  2. Micaela Willoughby Micaela Willoughby

    I think that even by England’s definition of a tyrant, Richard III would meet that criteria. While it’s true that we have no idea what he is like with the people, murdering and wrongfully imprisoning those who are “threats” to him with no rightful cause or means IS infringing on the rights of citizens. Because, despite being royalty, they are citizens too and have the right to live.

  3. Quinn Maguire Quinn Maguire

    It is interesting to note that leaders whom we think were tyrants during one historical time period might not be considered a tyrant now; even with all of the atrocities Richard carried out like murdering lords and locking away his nephews. One definition he fit then and fits now is the definition of a toxic charismatic. Like you mentioned, we do not know his exact relationship with the common people, but we do know the effects he had on his close family which I believe to be toxically charismatic.

Leave a Reply