Richard II was a very important play in Shakespeare's career. I believe it was a turning point in fact, because it was here that he became less concerned with such things as getting historical facts straight, and more concerned with exploring the human condition - to depths that have yet to be equaled by any other artist. And Richard himself, a forerunner of Hamlet and other great introspective protagonists, was the reason for the shift becoming permanent. It must have been an almost shocking experience for audience members of that time to see a monarch portrayed in such a manner, and it still is, in fact, if we consider it carefully. The story of his reign and deposition, though not well known now, would have been very familiar to Elizabethan audiences, similar in importance to Watergate to our time. Shakespeare's decision to use those events for the revelation of the inner workings of the mind of a king has been interpreted in various ways: Several critics have even called him "socially conservative" because he seems to sympathize with the deposed king, but I wouldn't agree. Richard's revealed humanity clearly contradicts his own view of himself as the "Lord's anointed", and it surprises him as much as it does the audience, but the underlying message is actually a very subversive one: Every person on this planet, including monarchs, is a human being.