Richard III written differently

Just a bit of a random thought that came into mind (blame Oancitizen for this). Richard III somewhat became an archetype of (regardless of actual history) of scheming manipulative vilain through Shakespeare's play and couldn't help but think what would have happen had the bard decided for different type of character (like say instead of being manipulative and ruthless he was instead comedically incompetent and unworthy of his position or anything else you think might be probable ), would it make any sort of note worthy difference in history or is it even possible?
 
I'm sure it could be done, but the play would be utterly different. One can easily imagine a play where the scheming of others puts Richard on the throne, and he is portrayed as a clueless fool, a pawn in the game of other players. That would essentially allow for the same series of events to be portrayed, but with, say, Buckingham as the evil genius and Richard as his puppet.

It could have the effect of making Richard the archetype of the fool who is used to serve the ends of others, and it would make Buckingham the archetype of the scheming nobleman. Cultural references would reflect that.
 
I'm sure it could be done, but the play would be utterly different. One can easily imagine a play where the scheming of others puts Richard on the throne, and he is portrayed as a clueless fool, a pawn in the game of other players. That would essentially allow for the same series of events to be portrayed, but with, say, Buckingham as the evil genius and Richard as his puppet.

It could have the effect of making Richard the archetype of the fool who is used to serve the ends of others, and it would make Buckingham the archetype of the scheming nobleman. Cultural references would reflect that.

Problem with that is it suggests Royalty can be manipulated by the nobility. That will not go down well with Queen Liz. Even though Richard is the villain if he is merely a puppet then that detracts from his position as 'false King'. The strength of the position of Royalty, even the WRONG Royalty must be maintained.

Also Richard was her Grand-father's enemy. He needs to be cast as the main scheming villian as it makes her Grand-Father look all the more noble, and by extension her. It reinforces her right to rule by being the bastion of truth and righteousness.

You have to cast Richard III in a bad light, without lessening him. Unfortunately the only way I can see to do that is how he was written - the villainous King Richard III.
 
Problem with that is it suggests Royalty can be manipulated by the nobility. That will not go down well with Queen Liz. Even though Richard is the villain if he is merely a puppet then that detracts from his position as 'false King'. The strength of the position of Royalty, even the WRONG Royalty must be maintained.

Also Richard was her Grand-father's enemy. He needs to be cast as the main scheming villian as it makes her Grand-Father look all the more noble, and by extension her. It reinforces her right to rule by being the bastion of truth and righteousness.

You have to cast Richard III in a bad light, without lessening him. Unfortunately the only way I can see to do that is how he was written - the villainous King Richard III.

Quite right.
It's also worth noting that he can be played as someone who has also gotten so frustrated with being perceived as being villainous, whereas his cousin is the "golden boy", that he decides to play type.
 
You have to cast Richard III in a bad light, without lessening him. Unfortunately the only way I can see to do that is how he was written - the villainous King Richard III.


Basically, Shakespeare wasn't writing history, but entertainment - and bad kings provide far more scope for this than good ones.

OTOH, living in an absolute monarchy, he had to be careful which kings he labelled as bad. Richard III was far and away the safest choice under Elizabeth (or any Tudor) while Macbeth was an equally obvious candidate under James I.

For similar reasons, he prudently ended Henry VIII at the birth of Elizabeth. I've sometimes thought it was daring of him to write Richard II, which was sailing pretty close to the wind.
 
What political PoD would allow Dick the Puppet to be politically acceptable? A successful rebellion against an 'ill-counciled' monarch like the rebellions of Mortimer or de Montfort would make it acceptable, but I can't see a way of getting that done in time for Shakespeare to write Richard III* without a PoD that is so early that it butterflies him out of being a playwright.
 
Top