Shakespeare, Richard II: analysis of Richard as a king
by
dhove (student)
Shakespeare, Richard II: analysis of Richard as a king
In Shakespeare’s Richard II, the king Richard’s identity can be characterized by several major subjects.
Firstly, at the very beginning of the play, he gives a good image of him and seems sure of himself. But our esteem of him will quickly decline, and even during the first scene of the play. Indeed, Bullingbrook clearly states that Richard planned Gloucester’s death : “Further I say, and further will maintain […] That he did plot the Duke of Gloucester’s death”, which informs us of a family betrayal right from the beginning. So we can say that conflicts in this play aren’t just political, they’re family matters as well. Then, still in the first scene, when Richard says “Forget, forgive, conclude and be agreed. Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.” he is clearly inappropriate and takes things too lightly ; another example to prove he’s a bad king and can’t cope with a situation when he needs to. Furthermore, later on but still in act I scene 1 Mowbray shows us Richard’s limits –and twice- during their ‘confrontation’ : Mowbray tells him “Myself I throw, dread sovereign, at thy foot. My life thou shalt command, but not my shame […]”, and to this Richard –still assuming superiority- answers that “Lions make leopards tame”, to what Mowbray will state “Yea, but not change his spots.”, and beat Richard at his own game. And after this, Richard will be incapable of being obeyed by Bullingbrook. Afterwards, Richard –by saying “We were not born to sue, but to command”- suggests “I’m supposed to be in charge”, which shows he isn’t and so that he hasn’t any strategy. Here we recognize the logic of the king who says he gets what he wants because he is the king, but who also is disorganized, non-autonomous and non-domineering.
