King Richard!

Although movies often play fast and loose with history and fact, I don't think that the political history here is too far off. Richard II, as you noted, took the throne after Edward III died in 1377. Richard was actually Edward's grandson. His father, the infamous Black Prince died before his father. Richard therefore became next in line to the throne. Edward III was a prime instigator of the hundred years war between England and France. By 1369 the English had made significant gains in France, but the wheels were starting to come off and the French began to regain lost territory. There was tremendous political instability if you factor in plague, constant and draining war (which wasn't going well), an elderly and enfeebled king (old age and mistresses hadn't been kind) and growing rivalry between that enfeebled king's twelve children. One must feel some sympathy for Richard II when at the tender age of ten he's asked to step into this situation and become king.

The most powerful noble in the land was his uncle, John of Gaunt. Gaunt protected Richard's interests and was loyal (though after his own death his son rebelled, overthrew Richard II and is most likely guilty of if not ordering than approving of regicide). This would have included trying to hold on to what little was left of English gains in France (Calais and a bit of the coast). This is likely the campaign that they were speaking of. John of Gaunt's wealth can't be estimated (ok, it can but in today's terms we'd be calling him a rock star billionaire) but even it was stretched by the devastation to the tax base -- his prime source of income -- through plague and constant war, and allies were needed to hold the gains. Pragmatically speaking, at least in terms of the movie (and this is where fact and fiction begin to blend), the De Guise character would have provided military strength, money, supplies and most importantly, time. He was a distasteful ally to have **SPOILERS!** -- rumours of his violent sexual appetite for little boys -- but I would speculate that he was used in the film as a politcal and military means to an end. They do a more thorough job of questioning the ethics of that decision in the film than I will here.

Your questions:

1. Did De Guise violate the King? I would say no. He may never have even met him formally although he likely would have seen the king if he (De Guise) was at court. Gaunt was the power at this critical point and would have been shielding him.

2 & 3. What motivates the De Guise character? I think he spells it out in the debate with the Paul Bettany character. Power. What is more attractive than the power you possess? The greater power that someone else possesses. the De Guise character is written with a particular menace in mind. It has to threatening to a child king (or to his guardians and advisors) to have a predatory and unreliable ally. Does De Guise want to hurt the king? He's having covert meetings with conspirators and organizing a rebellion so that can't stand too well in his favour. And consider: King's who were overthrown in England didn't live long or well in prison. Richard II was starved to death By Henry IV. Edward II was violently murdered in prison. The boy princes were politically inconvenient for Richard III and disappeared. Might young Richard II have had anything better in store for himself if De Guise had successfully gained power? We saw how his violent appetite was fulfilled on other helpless young boys he had in his clutches.

My thoughts, anyway. Hope they were some help

Well as for the timeline involved de Guise didn't have to be with Ruchard the whole time as he was probably also campaining for the former king Edward III. At that point Edward was very old and sick and there was a lot of wrangling going on between his hiers. So a plot could have already been forming to depose whomever became King. Most likely Richard II.