Defective Rulers in Henry IV and Richard II
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
Throughout Richard II, Bolingbroke is up against King Richard. Richard is, to a considerable degree, the morally void opportunist: he does after
…show more content…
My Lord of Westminster, be it your charge
To keep him safely till his day of trial.
May it please you, lords, to grant the Commons suit?
Bolingbroke: Fetch hither Richard, that in common view
He may surrender; so we shall proceed
Without suspicion.'
while he remains blameless and pure. Bolingbroke is the superior ruler because he combines Richard's total lack of morality with deception.
The slip that nearly costs Bolingbroke ( Henry ) his crown in Henry IV is a violation of the principle that got Henry the crown. For a moment the king is angered by Hotspur's prancing about his denied prisoners, and lets Hotspur know the reason for his ignoring Mortimer's capture. Henry openly tells Hotspur and the crown of nobles present that he does not ever intend to pay Mortimer's ransom, and calls Hotspur an enemy to the crown for expecting his brother's ransom. In a moment of anger, Henry has openly displayed his total lack of sympathy for the separated brothers, and called both threats to his kingship. And he walks away! Henry could easily have maintained control here by simply matching Hotspur's appearances and eloquence, and promising and delaying Mortimer's ransom. Instead he lays open his Machiavellian intentions and walks off after laying down a threat. His anger here is in some ways a virtue,
As a king, Henry becomes known for being a man of resilience, strategy, and combat. These traits, according to Machiavelli, are necessary to become the “ideal king.” As stated by Machiavelli, “…a prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules.” (Machiavelli) This can be seen when the Dauphin presents Henry with a gift of tennis balls and an insulting speech practically telling him to stay out of grown men’s affairs. This gives Henry the leverage he needs to start a war with France without looking like the instigator. He can now put the blame of war on the Dauphin and the many lives of whom will be killed. Henry uses this to move toward his strength and show his full potential.
Richard’s political ambition is revealed through his strategic calculations based on the order of birth in his York family which puts him third away from the throne. Ahead of him is his elder brother, George Clarence, a barrier which will have to eradicate. His brother, King Edward, is another political barrier, by simply being alive, in power and equally by being the father of the two young princes . Richard’s creates a political mistrust between his two
A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.
It is only during his deposition and his imprisonment that Richard shows his greatest strength as a dramatic figure. Although occasionally he seems to demonstrate self-pity, he also reveals himself to have an acute awareness of the ironies and absurdities in the structure of power of his kingdom. He still compels the court to reconsider his initial claim that the crown is divinely appointed: “Not all the water… can wash the balm of an anointed king (3.2.55)”. Although he keeps reminding those present of his God-given mandate to rule, he seems also to take pleasure in passing on the trails of kingship to his successor. As a King, He does have a God-given position of being the king. But as a king one should know the difference between moral values and ethics values. Just because Richard is King and is appointed by God doesn’t give him any rights to be an awful ruler. He can’t always fight a problem by saying that he is
Since Richard cannot do anything about his deformity and ugliness he turns his bitterness to ambition and lays the groundwork for his plan to betray King Edward IV. Richard tells the audience, “plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, to set my brother Clarence and the King in deadly hate against the other; and if King Edward be as true and just as I am subtle, false, and treacherous, this day should Clarence closely be mewed up, about a prophecy, which says that G OF Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be” (1.1.32-40). In these lines, Richard reveals his plan that he will turn Clarence and King Edward against each other so Edward will banish Clarence to the tower because he believes Clarence will be his murderer. Richard will do this through declaring a prophecy that this will be so. Richard explains that this will work because King Edward is as just as Richard is treacherous and Richard will use that against King Edward to cause his and Clarence’s demise. It is not known whether the character Richard would have revealed more about his plan this early in the play because he is interrupted by Clarence. Richard ends the speech with the lines, “dive thoughts down to my soul, here Clarence comes” (1.1.41), which basically means that he better keep
While his heart must be black, Richard must convey the appearance of a humble and gracious ruler. He will say or do anything to gain and then to keep his crown. Perhaps the most striking examples of this Jekyl and Hyde farce are his pledges of undying love for two women he plans to have killed, claiming that all the heinous acts he's committed were only for their love.
Just because you love someone does not mean that you are not a tyrant. In addition, too, this is the first time that King Henry V had deceived his people. King Henry V used to live an unvirtuous life while hanging out with robbers and non-chaste woman. But as soon as King Henry received the crown he was a different person and never seemed to think about his old life even when his friend is going to die Henry V does not do anything to stop it he just says “What men have you lost, Fluellen” followed by “…I think the Duke hath lost never a man, but one that is like to be executed for robbing a church…” (III.vi.88-95). Even when his friend is brought up in conversation King Henry V does not ask if there is anything his friend could do to be pardoned. King Henry V does not do things because he is a Machiavellian tyrant and desires to be feared rather than loved.
King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).
Richard’s aspiration for power caused him to sacrifice his morals and loyalties in order to gain the throne of England. Shakespeare refers to the political instability of England, which is evident through the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians fighting for the right to rule. In order to educate and entertain the audience of the instability of politics, Shakespeare poses Richard as a caricature of the Vice who is willing to do anything to get what he wants. As a result, the plans Richard executed were unethical, but done with pride and cunningness. Additionally, his physically crippled figure that was, “so lamely and unfashionable, that dogs bark at me as I halt by them,” reflects the deformity and corruption of his soul. The constant fauna imagery of Richard as the boar reflected his greedy nature and emphasises that he has lost his sense of humanity.
land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was
A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.
In Shakespeare’s history play Richard II, King Richard II’s relationship with God can be explored throughout the play as he gives up his crown. Richard II is easily seen as weak, making some think that he is not fit for the role of king. He does not listen to his advisors and takes money from the nobles. These actions lead Henry Bolingbroke to take the crown. Richard II does not put up much of a fight as he willingly hands the crown over to Bolingbroke, but he does prolong the process as he dramatically hands his crown and scepter over. Richard II even speaks out about his power that was given to him:
Henry laments over the fact that Hal is not the son he would have liked, religiously alluding to the unruliness of his son that he has no control over is the punishment from God as a result of his usurpation of the throne. This religious allusion reflecting on Henry’s sins demonstrates the both the political power the King obtains, as he deposed the previous King, but also the powerlessness he has in correspondence to the Lord, and his own conscience. In addition, Henry use of the term “grafted” describes Prince Hal’s connection to Falstaff and the subsequent rejection of his more important blood relations and thus his role as the heir to the English throne. It can be argued that Hal purposely attempts to separate himself from the royal role that his father sets for him, understanding that his father usurped the Divine Right of Kings and thus sought the company of individuals that would successfully result in the disapproval of his father and the Royal Court. Hal finds companions in the rouges in which inhabit the Boar 's Head Inn and Eastcheap, including the thieving surrogate father Falstaff. However, while the two locations and companies are considered to differ starkly, Shakespeare successfully mirrors the separate destinations in first two scenes between the Royal Court and the “Rouge Court” found in the Boar’s Head Inn. Whilst the occupants are of the Inn are freely labelled as thieves, the occupants of the
Bolingbroke accused mowbray of killing King Richard’s uncle.mowbray denies having to do anything with the embezzlement and conspiracy against the king. But knows how to scheme to kill Gloucester and that he tried to kill Richard’s uncle John. Mowbray and Bolingbrook have a heated argument and they challenge each other to a duel Bolingbroke’s father John tries to make them stop but they don’t because it is a matter of honor. Everybody gathers to wait for or Bolingbroke and Mowbray to see if they can come to peace. Bolingbroke’s father has a visit from the Widow of his brother and she’s angry about her husband’s death and tells gaunt to revenge his death because maybe he’s next But he says no because he believes that King Richard was appointed by God and going against him is treason and blasphemy against God And he believes that is gods job. Is very important to note because many characters believe this. King Richard stopped the dual because he fuck these acts would cause A still more so he banished Bolingbroke for six years and mowbray for life Bolingbrook’s dad told him to look at this in a. Philosophical viewpoint and King Richard says that Bolingbrook may never see is that again. After this King Richard returns with some friends and allies. One of them called bushy says that he saw Bolingbroke leaving London and King Richard is told that the commoners Love Bolingbroke because he’s nice to the. King Richard believes that Bolingbroke might be running for king and he is
As Machiavellians, Richard III and Henry V become actors, acting differently in certain situations to be able so that they will benefit, but in these situations Henry V has noble aims. Richard’s goal just seems to become the King(1.1.140-148). In a true Machiavellian fashion, he deceives several people like his brothers and the common people to try and advance his goal. When he is talking with Clarence his imprisoned brother he tells him, “your imprisonment shall not be long; I will deliver you.” He is