Shakespeare History

1. How does Shakespeare’s intriguing presentation of the history of Richard II make it difficult for us to come to easy conclusions about who should be king?  

King Richard II is infused with so many different aspects of kingship that the conclusion of kingship is still never resolved at the end of the history play. When focusing on the two characters who are in competition of the crown we see just how opposing their opinions on what it is to be a good and just king. When we are first introduced to King Richard we see just how much he is focusing on a certain aspect of kingship. He knows about the luxuries of the title for he spends without much thought, and he knows what will prove his way to the title. He has this idea of living in the excess for his ruling is focused on spending on wars or his enjoyment. When looking at his faults we see how his ruling may not be perfect, but he does rely on the divine appointment in his ruling. With this special right we see how he is able to feel just in his position, and with this appointment even his great faults will not destroy the kingdom for he was chosen to be the ruler. We then see Bolingbroke in his rise to be king, and how he constructs how he can justly become king without the right from heritage. He uses the strength of people backing him and the popularity he has accrued over his lifetime to justify his own rise to kingship. He never takes the crown because of this respect to the crown and its wrath when unjustly taken, but we also see how the idea of kingship is thrown up into the air and we see bits of its characteristics through both Bolingbroke and Richard. We never get a complete picture because we notice just how skewed the idea is shown, and we can see both good and bad qualities in both characters.

1. How is the play as a whole designed to elicit a surprising sympathy for both sides?  Discuss Shakespeare’s use of secondary characters to make the play work in this way.

When looking at both sides of the picture and discovering who is really on the sides of either King Richard or Bolingbroke we see how important the supporting characters are. We see how their sympathy and loyalty sways the audience in different directions confusing the idea of kingship even more. We see the type of loyalty that the Queen holds for her husband and how much love she pours out to him throughout the play. We never see her as a character in herself, but someone who is there for the sole purpose of lamenting the position her husband is in. She sees him not just as a king, but a human being who is being betrayed by friends and family alike. We are able to see the human side of Richard through her eyes and gives the audience sympathy for him. Bolingbroke before his coronation has his father and general sympathizers who show us the good in Bolingbroke, and through this we also know that he is a likeable and supportable character. After the coronation Bolingbroke has the Duke of York who is completely on his side, and shows that on both sides of his power he is still a person that earns respect from others. Even with the wrongful actions of both characters there are still people who support them to an extraordinary level. This makes the audience confused in who is the more genial person through the secondary characters.