Compare and contrast Lear and Macbeth's effectiveness as Kings.

Authors Avatar

Compare and contrast how effective King Lear and Macbeth are as monarchs

In order to assess how effective King Lear and Macbeth are as monarchs, it is first necessary to look at the qualities that a 17th century leader should have, compared with a 21st century leader. In the 17th century there was a strong belief in the Divine Right of Kings, that the monarch was anointed by God. It was believed that only God could change a monarch and if anyone tried to interfere, God would wreak his revenge and spread disorder and chaos. Although the monarch was anointed by God, this did not mean that they did not have responsibilities. They were expected to love and serve God and also love and serve their people. The monarchs were also supposed to possess certain qualities which would help them create a strong nation. God gave them the qualities of wisdom, good judgement, justice and mercy, by using their power without destruction. Monarchs were seen as the people’s leader and people looked to their monarch for guidance, strength and hope. Today, we look for different attributes in our leaders. We elect people who are charismatic, decisive, open minded and trustworthy. In this essay I will look at the qualities expected of a 17th century monarch and King Lear and Macbeth’s effectiveness as Kings. King Lear is the ageing king of Britain who has always enjoyed absolute power and who does not respond well to being challenged or contradicted. Macbeth is a nobleman, war hero and Thane of Glamis. He is well respected and loyal to King Duncan.

 In the 17th century it was important that a monarch loved and served God as they were his anointed representative. When King Lear first appears it is clear that he plans to give away the Kingdom which God has entrusted to him. The audience knows that he is going to do this when Lear says “In three our Kingdom”. As the monarch, Lear is God’s representative and therefore the kingdom is not his to give away. In contrast to King Lear, who chooses to give up his throne, Macbeth seizes the throne from Duncan who is the legitimate King anointed by God.

I am settled, and bend up

Each corporal agent to this terrible feat”

Both Macbeth and Lear reject the law of the Divine Right of Kings. However in Lear’s case it could be argued that he does so with the good of the country in mind. Perhaps he believes that in his old age he is incapable of ruling the country, and it should be passed on to “younger strengths”. On the other hand Macbeth has no valid reason to seize the throne apart from blind ambition. Whatever justification they have for their actions, neither monarch has the vision to see that God will wreak his revenge because they have gone against the natural order

Join now!

When anointed by God, monarchs were expected to serve their country and their people. Any action they took was meant to strengthen the country. Both Lear and Macbeth show they don’t serve their people and country and their actions weaken their Kingdom by bringing chaos and disorder. Initially Lear is seen as a strong ruler.  When Lear enters in Scene I he appears with a lot of pomp and ceremony which gives the impression of Lear’s authority. He then puts his three daughters to the test, and asks them to tell him how much they love him in front ...

This is a preview of the whole essay