Shakespeare's first history cycle (the three Henry VI plays and Richard III are somewhat dark works and the darkness seems to grow with every play. There are virtuous characters, but no real moral centre. Certainly not the king himself who is kind and decent, but lacks any fibre or backbone to manage the unruly upstarts that he faces.Nor are the king's enemies any better. York and his sons may claim a greater right to the throne, but they are corrupted by the means which they use to seize and hold onto power.The number of deaths also begins to grow as the national crisis gets out of hand. In the first Henry VI play, there are only a few deaths and it is mostly made up of intrigues that fail to arrive at any fruition. In the second play, a number of key characters fall victim to the schemes of their enemies or are hoisted on their own petard.It is only in Henry VI Part 3 that the tragedy begins to spread beyond a few scheming nobles and to affect the entire country, as civil war breaks out. Hence we have the emblematic scene where the king meets a son who has killed his father, and a father who has killed his son. In another scene, a vindictive nobleman kills York's infant son and later the youthful son of Henry will be killed by King Edward and his brothers.This then is the world of the third Henry VI play. The play is again quite long, a similar length to the second play. It has far more scenes, but the plot is far more straightforward, albeit no more unified than before.We have followed the fortunes of the scheming Duke of York for two plays and watched his steady rise to power. Perhaps surprisingly this is now disposed of in the first act of the play. York's hold on power proves short-lived and he falls into the hands of his enemies who cruelly kill him.However, the Lancastrian's triumph is short-lived. York's place is taking by his three sons who now push Henry off the throne and take over, aided by the powerful Earl of Warwick. The new king, Edward, proves to rather poor in his own judgments, however. His marriage to an Englishwoman, Elizabeth Woodville, antagonises Warwick and the French king, coming at a time when Warwick is negotiating a marriage to the King's daughter.Warwick changes sides and joins the Lancastrians. Between them, they return in force to rescue Henry and capture Edward. However, Edward soon escapes and in a series of battles he defeats and kills Warwick and captures the Lancastrian royal family. Henry's son is murdered by the victors, and Henry himself falls victim to the evil Richard, Duke of Gloucester.The play ends with Edward expressing a vain hope that there will now be peace in the country whilst Gloucester, Edward's brother, is secretly scheming to bring about the deaths of anyone who stands between him and the throne.This will set the scene for Richard III, just as Suffolk's scheming acted as a bridge between Henry VI Part I and Henry VI Part II. Also notable in this respect is the brief introduction of the young Henry, Earl of Richmond who King Henry (rightly) predicts will one day be king. Hence the villain and hero of the new play are already named.Indeed, one of the alternative titles of Henry VI Part III was 'Richard of Gloucester', reflecting interest in the new character who would soon have a play of his own. We already see some of the propagandising that would reduce Richard to an evil genius who is apparently responsible for the murder of just about every significant person who ever died during the period. In this play, it is both the king and the king's son whom Richard personally murders.This demotion of Edward IV is interesting. He is king for much of this play and a significant part of the next one, but never gets a play named after him. This reflects a certain lack of interest in him on Shakespeare's part, and certainly he comes across a pleasure-seeking womaniser of little substance.Henry also never dominates any of the plays named after him, though this reflects his weakness. He is a character who is acted upon, and never one who acts. He is a strangely sympathetic character at times, and much better than most of the ruthless and pitiless characters that we see in these three plays. Perhaps if he had held any position other than king he might have led a happy life, but unhappily for him and the country, it is he who is king.It is worth saying something about his wife, Margaret of Anjou here. She is after all the unlikely character who has appeared in the most Shakespeare plays (she will make her fourth appearance in Richard III). For the main part, she is a terrible person. In the first two plays, she is besotted with Suffolk and involved in intrigues. In this play, however, we see her at her worst. She is without mercy or kindness in her treatment of her enemies, mocking them as they fall. Hence when her own son is murdered, it seems like some kind of punishment on her. Shakespeare's treatment of her is undeniably harsh, and not unmixed with snobbery. As characters frequently point out, she is of lower birth than her husband and their marriage brought no gain to the kingdom.The play then is another convoluted and disunited collection of historical incidents (of dubious accuracy) like the two preceding plays. However, it remains a fascinating and interesting account of the events of this age, as seen through Tudor eyes, and there is much to enjoy in it.

The concluding part of William Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses trilogy ends with Edward IV firmly in charge and with about half the cast of the play dead -- but with Richard Crookback in the wings waiting to make his own grab at the crown, which he will do in Richard III.Henry VI, Part 3 is full of of "alarums and excursions" as the partisans of York and Lancaster find it out to the bitter end. The play is Shakespeare's lesson as to what happens to the kingdom when the king is weak. And Henry VI is weak indeed, too full of the milk of human kindness to fight off the forces arrayed against him. Only in Act V, as he is confronted by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, in the Tower of London does he rise to any degree of courage, but only to be stabbed by Richard -- but not before cursing out his would-be assassin and insulting him to the point of drawing his dagger.This is a play with a plethora of characters, such that I would imagine it would be better to see it than read it, what with all its short battle scenes.The War of the Roses trilogy is not often read today, but it is worth the effort. Although not the best of the Bard, nor yet even the best of the histories, it still tells us a great deal about the times, which tend to be somewhat neglected even by historians.

This one doesn't really have a plot, it's more a series of stabbings.