It seems the structural pattern of Shakespeare's Richard III represents the political myth of Tudor dynasty in that Richard's deformed appearance and villainous personality are not quite different from from those described in the contemporar ...

It seems the structural pattern of Shakespeare's Richard III represents the political myth of Tudor dynasty in that Richard's deformed appearance and villainous personality are not quite different from from those described in the contemporary history books which were written to support so called the Tudor Myth. However, we can find some ingredients for making a parody of such political myth grounded on the traditional view of history that completely depends on God's providence. And the basis of the parody lies in Richard's duality. He is both a villain and a comedian, both a cruel monster and an attractive actor who can play lots of roles. Furthermore, he is a man free from God's providence and traditional order and also becomes a tragic person who is confined within the traditional order. This arbitrary duality results from the distance between history and history play. There lies Shakespeare's cynical view of history in this gap.
In this sense, Shakespeare's writing is two-fold. In Richard III, he supports the contemporary political discourse based on Tudor Myth on the surface, but below the surface he is hiding some little voices which deny and mock the ruling discourse. On the surface, Richard III seems to show the typical structure that a Machiavellian villain mocking the traditional moral order dominates the dramatic world but is finally destroyed by Richmond, who becomes a new king guided under God's providence. But Richard, the dual role player, who mocks and parodies the distorted society owning to the bloody power struggle is not the typical villain that justifies the traditional view of history but a critical character that is produced by a new view of history and value.