Richard II by Aaron Angello

Kyle Stone

2026-03-31 17:44:14 UTC

I Think in Richard the Second Shakespeare shows what the nature of kingship is something that has to be respected unless the king that has critical flaws that make the citizens and those around him not like. Richard as a king is indecisive, arbitrary and, abrupt. He makes decisions without thinking of their ramifications of the actions. In the play Bolingbroke’s progression to becoming Henry the 4^th of England is done through support of the masses who are fed up with Richard showing how another thing that makes a king is the support of the people. Having the support of the people is what makes a king and by the end of the play Richard loses support of the vast majority of people. Only a small subset of people chose to fight to attempt to put Richard back on the throne but were outnumbered and put down by Henry’s allies. At the end of the play Henry realizes that his rule is not as legitimate, and people will see him as a usurper going forward resolving to himself to attempt to absolve himself of sin. Overall the view of Kingship within this play is one of public support and general empathy and kindness and actually following through with your actions and making sure not to anger those around you while not arousing suspicious through your behind-the-scenes actions. As well as not having Richard’s main flaws by being a king on the contrary indecisive, abrupt and arbitrary being a King who provides a prime example of how to rule a country properly and making sure you follow your rules and laws in a respectable manners not making exceptions as if Richard had actually allowed Bolingbroke and Morway to duel and have their trial by combat and a winner was decided a lot of the primary problems of the play would not have occurred and Richard may have stayed king, only if he hadnt exuded his flaws that were unfit for a king.

George B.

2026-04-01 20:33:58 UTC

“If I, if I…were king.” The cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz ends his song with a flourish. This was also the phrase by which I remembered the present unfulfillable wish component of the passive voice as a ten year old. At that time my mother was still a British subject (Irish citizen) so I was a bit more familiar with British royalty than the normal New Jersey kid. This led to my resentment of then Prince Charles, who was ten years my senior. “I would be a better prince,” I remember telling my mother. Now if a kid sitting in New Jersey is gunning for your job as putative King of England, imagine the pressure felt when it’s your own cousin: close in age, close at hand and close to (and proficient at) weaponry. Add to that, you are only ten years old yourself. Now that’s pressure!

A king (or queen) must be made to feel that they are special in that and other situations. God ordained and/or God like. Otherwise, one might crack under the pressure. In fact, some do and exhibit the break(s) from their own royal reality. To wit, King Richard II is aware of his sKpecial place in the royal firmament, but he is constantly beset with his own limitations, ill-meaning relatives and peasant rebellions. Perhaps the divine right of kings grew out of a need for royals to first convince themselves and then others that they really were placed by God above other “people” on earth. Richard, like other royals, can casually compare himself to the sun, whilst still fearing the next attack, if not many attacks. Henry VIII actually said, “We are, by the sufferance of God, King of England; and the Kings of England in times past never had any superior but God.” He believed that and he made others believe it and that is consummate use of the royal “we.”

The democratization of education, modern media and the internet make the ability to claim the divine right of kings impossible today. I wonder whether God can withstand the internet. Like so many things it’s the happenstance of birth that puts Charles Windsor on the throne. That said, it’s a tough gig-I hasten to add it also comes with profound perks. The isolation and self-indulgence of Richard wasn’t all his fault. He was born into it as it were. The best King in Shakespeare, in my opinion, Harry V, very clearly understood his royal duties such as they were, yet maintained an appreciation and even dedication to the “common man.” The concept of noblesse oblige. “We few, we happy few…” (HV, Act IV Scene iii) When Harry spoke these words he was talking to his brothers-certainly no intention of using the royal we. But even dear Harry was capable of noting royal privilege (if only “in private”) “Nice customs curtsy to great kings.” HV, Act V, Scene ii) Some kings do a lot of talking (Richard II); some kings have no time to talk as they are constantly moving to repel potential usurpations (Henry IV); other kings appear to get the mix right (Henry V).

So, would I still choose to be King? Some would question why anyone would want the job-whether in medieval or modern times-seeing the possible ends they face. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” (HIV Part II, Act III , Scene ii) I don’t know. I still think I would like to have a shot. Mel Brooks got it right, “It’s good to be king!” (The History of the World, Part I)

Caspian Byers

2026-04-01 20:37:48 UTC

Something interesting about the depiction of Kingship and leadership in this is that the play serves such a contemporary purpose. Art and performance are always inherently political and are always very heavily informed by the culture in which they are made. However, in the case of historical plays, they are even more so; they are intentionally political in a very overt way and serve the purpose of serving a current and very specific ideal, that of the current royalty. Richard II is an interesting story because it passes the kingship along as an unrestful and heavy crown, even for one who did bad things and made the wrong choices. The decisions still weigh on him, and he still feels the heaviness of being in such a leadership position. Shakespeare also represents the usurper who is of a noble family but not the next in line for the throne as a person deserving of respect, while Richard himself is less sympathetic. Not to say that he is entirely unsympathetic, he is still portrayed as a man with complexities, but all the same, Henry is not written off as a villain wrongfully taking the throne. Someone seeking to represent Henry in the historical record as an actively good king would have made Richard even less sympathetic than Shakespeare did; a man on the side of Richard II(if they exist) would have made Henry less sympathetic. Shakespeare uses this to present a supposed neutrality, but in the end, he pushes a specific bias with the purpose of essentially rewriting history. However, the most interesting thing to me is representing kingship as a bondage, a title heavy to hold, rather than representing it as a glorious, god-given right. A good king is a servant to his people, a bad one expects them to be his servants.

Natalie Benincasa

2026-04-02 01:45:46 UTC

When looking at Richard II, Shakespeare shows that being a king is not as nice and lavish as it might seem. At the start of the play, Richard believes that he has this divine right over other kings, that he thinks that God has chosen him, and that no other being or person will have the power to remove him. However, when Henry Bolingbroke had successfully taken his throne away, it became very clear that belief alone is not enough to keep power away from him. Shakespeare also likes to make it very obvious that Richard struggles as a ruler by making those poor decisions. For example, he takes people's land and likes to surround himself with people who flatter him instead of people who are trustworthy, like advisors. He often acts emotionally rather than logically, which causes people to lose respect for him, and because of this, he weakens his own position as a ruler. Now, on the other hand, Bolingbroke comes across as more of a controlled and politically aware leader than Richard. Boilingbroke understands how important it is to have support and appear to the people as a strong leader, which benefits him and gives him more power. This contrast shows that being born a king does not automatically make someone a good leader. The play also makes the suggestion that kingship is almost like a role that someone has to perform or act. Richard is very focues on what the images of a king should look like, but once he loses the crown, he starts to realize that he is just like everyone else in the world. This moment of realization highlights how unstable power really is and how t cane be taken away just like that. It also doesn't define someone as who they truly are as people. Overall, Shakespeare seems to be stating that kingship depends on more than just divine power. A ruler has to earn respect, make smart decisions, and maintain that support for the people. Without these things, even kings can lose everything just like that.

Allison M.

allisonmf19 — 2026-04-02 04:52:04 UTC

When we talk about kings, I know it's drilled into our heads from high school, the divine right of kings, and we typically generalize kings to live pretty well off, surrounded by nobility and covered in riches. While yes, some of this may be true, Richard II does a good job of painting kingship in a not-so-great light. Instead of portraying the king as untouchable and all-powerful, the play highlights how fragile a king's authority can be. Even though Richard is God's chosen one by divine right, he still makes bad choices and loses the support of his people. When you are expected to lead people, Loyalty becomes a key part of your authority, and when it begins to fall apart for Richard in this play, we truly see his downfall from there. As readers, we get a growing sense of Richard and how he doesn't seem to care as much about exercising authority effectively as he does about maintaining the appearance of a king. As a result, there is a distance between him and his subjects, which makes it simpler for people like Bolingbroke to get involved and challenge him. Shakespeare makes it evidently clear that kingship is less like a position of authority, but more like an act, and this idea of divine right has no legitimacy if a king is doing such a terrible job. The play also emphasizes how much of an emotional burden being king is on Richard. His downfall is both emotional and political. He is left vulnerable and confused without a crown and now must deal with the repercussions of his actions. To me, this was Shakespeare's way of questioning what it means for a person to be a king, and what the consequences are when your identity is defined by your job, in this case, as a ruler. Clearly, for Richard, it left him with very little sense of self.

Spencer Criscuoli

2026-04-02 13:32:23 UTC

Richard II's kingship is one that is defined by indecisiveness and immaturity. He makes decisions (like calling off the duel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray to exile the two of them instead) without thinking about the consequences. This trait is further emphasized by both the fact that Richard was incredibly young when he became king, essentially robbing him of a chance to “grow up”, and the idea of the divine right of kings, which suggested that all kings were chosen by God himself and, thus, could not make any mistakes. This leads to anger from both King Richard himself and the people when things go south. After Gaunt dies and Richard tries to use those funds to wage war in Ireland himself, an uprising is planned with Bolingbroke at the helm, which eventually leads to Richard’s being usurped, imprisonment, and death. The people began to recognize that Richard’s immaturity and selfishness were not qualities of a good king, so a group of conspirators helped to remove him and place Bolingbroke, now Henry IV as the new king. However, Henry IV’s reign is tumultuous at first, with another conspiracy to remove him and the subsequent killing of Richard in prison leading him to start a crusade into the Holy Land to cleanse his soul. Overall, this makes me think that Shakespeare’s view of what makes a good king is how he is treated by the people, not the other way around, as many others would think. If the people think the king is doing a good job, they will keep him in power. If he is doing a bad job, they will attempt to remove him and replace him with a new king who will do better. In a way, this goes directly against the idea of the “divine right of kings”, and suggests that it was not as ironclad of a belief as the royal family thought it was.

Cameron Luchie

2026-04-02 14:08:32 UTC

At the start, Richard clearly believes that being king is something sacred and untouchable, like he was chosen by God and therefore can do whatever he wants, but the way he rules completely undermines that idea. He’s careless with power, takes land that isn’t his, and makes decisions that feel more personal than just, so even though he has the “right” to rule, he doesn’t act like a good king. Meanwhile, Bolingbroke kind of represents the opposite, because even though he takes the throne in a way that technically isn’t legitimate, he acts in a way that seems more controlled and politically aware, which makes people support him. That contrast makes it feel like Shakespeare is suggesting that kingship isn’t just about divine right or inheritance, but also about responsibility and the ability to maintain order. At the same time though, the play never fully supports Bolingbroke either, especially since Richard’s removal leads to guilt and instability, which makes it seem like breaking the natural order of kingship has consequences no matter how justified it might feel. What stood out to me the most is how Richard changes once he loses power, because he becomes really self-aware and almost more human, which ironically makes him feel more “worthy” as a person after he’s no longer king. So overall, it feels like Shakespeare is showing that kingship is fragile and complicated, and that neither birthright nor force alone is enough to fully justify someone’s rule.

Alexis Simmerman

2026-04-02 14:59:38 UTC

I think that the main message about kingship that richard the second displays, at least through what shakespeare is trying to demonstrate, is that kingship isn't just a right, but also a powerful responsibility. Richard has allowed himself to be deluded into thinking that the fact that he was named king means that he is untouchable. However, everything that happens shows just how wrong that narrative is when he loses support and ends up losing his power and his life. He's not untouchable as king, and his arrogance and irresponsibility led to what happened. Richard treated his kingship as more of a performance, focusing on the ceremony of being king and focusing more on his personal interests rather than the interests of his people. Any leader needs to learn fairly quickly to push aside their own interests, learning how to use their power in a way that helps others. just because richard was born and was named for the throne, that didn't make him a competent leader in the slightest, and because of that, the responsibility he was supposed to be deserving of killed him. To me, Shakespeare is saying that anyone in a position of authority can't simply revel in that power, there needs to be a level of responsibility and maturity to put your own interests aside in favor of those who need you. To quote Arcane: "When people look up to you, you don't get to be selfish. You say run, they run, you say swim, they dive in, you say light a fire, they show up with oil. But whatever happens, it's on you. Just like it's on me what happens to us down there."

Brielle Morris

2026-04-02 21:00:41 UTC

I think this play represents the true nature of kingship, however many years ago. It was truly believed that royalty and triumph were a God given right; if you were King, you were a chosen one, if you win in a hand to hand combat or battle, you win if God is on your side. Richard ii is presented in the play, and apparently throughout history, as a brainwashed child that got him to believe he held this other worldly power, being appointed by God. The first example of this I see is when Bolingbroke and Mowbray are 'sentenced' to dual to resolve who is really betraying the throne. With the ideology that God would allow the person bearing 'truth' to win, both of these characters should have been allowed to fight it out and let natural consequences ocurr. But as we know, that does not happen, and instead King Richard ii intervenes and calls it off, and in doing so creates his own sentence of banishing the both of them. This could be read as King Richard ii, seeing that he himself holds the power of God, so much so that he can determine the outcome of Bolingbroke and Mowbray; he has the power to intervene with God. I also think the signifiers of a king really play into how it is presented in the play. A King is supposed to be the most powerful within his court, kingdom, and perhaps believes other territories. With this, comes the signifies of strong, manly, powerful, cunning, hard, etc. And yet, King Richard ii is not presented as any of these. He genuinely comes across as a whiny kid, he seems fragile, throws tantrums. Bolingbroke is who is presented as a 'Kingly" figure, which I think was intentional being that he usurps the throne. Bolingbroke is portrayed as a soldier, which has the connotation of being strong, violent, ruthless, leadership, etc. It is really interesting how Shakespeare presents two figures, that are the complete opposite of one another, both holding the title of King.

Luke Willis

2026-04-02 21:29:33 UTC

The deposition scene of Richard II strikes me as one that insists upon showing the audience what a man who has been raised with one singular overarching identity that's shaped his every action since the age of ten is like when he loses that identity. Kingship, much like any position of power or responsibility, strips the person who wears that title of at least some of their humanity. On a more literal level, Richard sees himself as somewhere between humanity and divinity- chosen by God and above other mortals, but not God himself. Still, it's more than that. Because kingship is Richard's identity, it strips him of the ability to have many other defining characteristics. The ones he does have, namely his petulance, his grandiosity, his willingness to use his power for whatever he wishes, are directly informed by the fact that he is king. He is more powerful because of the crown, but he is not more free. When Bolingbroke essentially cuts him loose from the kingship, he is lost. Even his name is tied to the crown, he says in Act 4. At least when Bolingbroke was banished, he retained a sense of self that wasn't necessarily tied to his titles in England. There are things you have to give up in the process of ascending to power; I believe it's in Henry V that Hal has to cut off Falstaff to be a good king. It's just that in Richard's case, he was simply too young to have really had anything of his own to lose in the first place. And so everything he is is the crown. Take that from him, and what does he have left?

Daniella Bowie

2026-04-12 20:27:46 UTC

The very notion of royalty has questioned many people, especially now where individuals that still have these titles, hold very little political power and are often symbolic in nature. But why are they symbolic in the first place? Shakespeares plays are intrinsically tied to British identity, especially during the time period his work was written. Throughout the play, we see Richard consumed by vanity and power, reflecting the idea of the divine right of kings and commentating on the validity of the crown. According to the Royal Shakespeare company, the play was most likely to be published in 1595, a time where religious themes heavily dictated society’s way of life. The importance of monarchy substantiated by holy authority gave reasoning for the existence of royalty, as though God personally chose them to fulfill these duties. We see this shown throughout the play, where Richard believed his rule/power was appointed by God. However, Shakespeare proposes that kingship is ultimately not defined by birthright, but rather being able to uphold the that responsibility through pragmatic approaches, not just displays of power. We see Bolingbroke exhibit these qualities, reinforcing the idea that performative power reinforced by the divine is not the foundation for stable leadership.

Lily Reynolds

2026-05-04 18:55:48 UTC

One way that Richard II and Richard III are similar is the fact that in both plays, someone turns on the namesake character. In Richard II, Henry Bolingbroke turns on Richard and causes the entire kingdom to go against him as well. In Richard III, Buckingham turns on Richard and teams up with Henry Tudor. Additionally, although their circumstances are different, both Richard II and Richard III are depicted as paranoid, which becomes a fatal flaw for both. A way that the plays differ would be the presence of Machiavellian tactics from each of the Kings. In Richard III, Richard does many things that are malicious in his quest for power. According to Machiavelli, it is important for a ruler to be feared rather than loved by their citizens. In The Prince, he says, “... their fear is secured by a dread of punishment which never fails you”. This can be seen when Richard orders the death of Clarence, imprisons Lord Rivers, and Richards manages to bribe someone to murder the young princes.

Another quote from The Prince that really stuck out to me and also correlates with Richard III could be the following: “For men in general judge more by their eyes than by their hands, everybody is fitted to see, few to understand. Everybody sees what you appear to be , few make out what you really are”. I believe this idea is really harnessed by Richard III throughout the play. This occurs when Richard orders the death of Clarence and King Edward does not know Clarence is dead and is guilt ridden. This persona Richard puts on also can be seen when Richard murders Lady Anne’s husband and King Henry VI. He acts innocent and heartbroken while manipulating everyone around him, putting on a different fact between what the general public sees and what the truth is.

Kaela Mitchell

2026-05-07 03:08:46 UTC

With the play Richard II, I think Shakespeare's point is to show how the role of the King is far more complex than people might perceive. The position symbolises a sense of power, highest respect and authority, however, with the play, Shakespeare tries to unveil the implications of this role. Richard II is treated like a king of divine status, meaning nobody is allowed to be above his rule but God. This makes it problematic for Henry to take the throne of Richard II because even if he is not fit to be ruler, that position still feels exclusive to Richard and taking it makes Henry corrupt and unnatural. At the same time, I think Shakespeare refuses to present kingship solely as a divine mandate fixed at birth. King Richard holds a divinely sanctioned title, but his actions sometimes fall short of leadership and common sense. Consequently, his authority is undermined by his failure to command respect. Through this, Shakespeare implies that a king should possess something more than the divine mandate: judgment, maturity, and perhaps some sympathy for the common people. The book views Richard II as “a play about the performance of majesty,” and I think that is an great way to describe the play since Shakespeare seems as though he is examining if kingship is a sacred power ordained by God or a kind of affectation that is partly created by ceremony, speech, and appearances. That is one of the main questions I think Shakespeare is proposing through Richard II.