1

856-685-0741

Professor Amy Mathur

EN 341 Shakespearean Drama

5 May 2016

Shakespeare’s Perfect King (Prompt #1)

In the three history plays that we have studied (King Lear, Richard II, and King Henry

IV, Part 1), there are four portrayals of a ruler, some more similar than others. You have King

Lear, Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. Each of these portrayals help defy what Shakespeare

saw as what a king of England should be and what his duties are. You start off with King Lear,

who might as well be the complete opposite of what a king should be. Lear even willingly gives

away his crown, which is very unnatural for a king. After King Lear, you have King Richard II,

and the only thing that is going for him is that he is the legitimate ruler of England. It is his

birthright. Then it is King Henry IV, who is a foil to Richard II. Henry IV is a great and almost

perfect king except for the fact that he stole the crown, which taints his reign. At the end of all

of this, we get King Henry V, the representation of what a perfect king should be like. These

plays are set up so that each king is a stepping stone to what Shakespeare believed what a perfect

king was.

King Lear is the first step to a perfect king, and he is also the bottom step. Before the

play even starts, it seems that King Lear’s reign was a good one, as far as we the readers know.

There isn’t any talk of problems such as a rebellion or a war. It even seems like England has a

good relationship with France because we see that the King of France wishes to marry Lear’s

youngest daughter, Cordelia. Everything seems to fall down once the play starts. Immediately

2

we see some of Lear’s fatal flaws: his inability to see reality and his misconception on what true

love is. He sees flattery over the truth. In Act 1. 1, he basically tells his daughters to tell him

how much they love and admire him, regardless if it is the truth or not. “Since now we will

divest us both of rule, / Interest of territory, cares of state, - / Which of you shall we say doth

love us most? / That we our largest bounty may extend / Where nature doth with merit

challenge” (King Lear Act 1. 1. 47-51). Now it wasn’t uncommon for the king to have people

flatter him in the court. In fact, that was how the people of the court got what they wanted, but

the problem here is that Lear can’t tell what true love is and what is not. He accepts Goneril’s

and Regan’s fake love, and when his favorite daughter, Cordelia, states that she cannot form

words of how much she loves him, he banishes her instantly. It doesn’t stop there. When Kent,

Lear’s most loyal servant, tries to stop Lear from banishing Cordelia, Lear banishes him too in a

fit of rage. This shows another flaw of Lear: his irrational anger and temper. While kings

should not be walked over by other people, they most certainly should not be a ticking time

bomb. Being this out of control does not make a good king, which is what Shakespeare is trying

to show. Overall, King Lear is a very unnatural king. He goes against the divine right of kings

by dividing up the country with two eldest daughters, he develops the inability to see reality, and,

eventually, he loses his sanity (specifically at Act 3. 4. 173 when the Earl of Gloster states that

the king is mad). Lear did have a positive transformation though. By Act 4, Lear overcame his

insanity and was able to see who truly loved and cared for him. That is Lear’s one great strength

is that he is able to overcome the odds against him. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Like any

other great Shakespearean tragedy, the characters we grow attached are greeted by death. King

Lear dies with a broken heart because the one person who loved him the most, and his favorite

daughter, died right in front of his eyes. Even though King Lear’s personality and reasoning

3

turns around in the end, he was not a good king, and Shakespeare needed to show the people of

England and example of bad king.

King Richard II is the first play in the tetralogy that our class studied. One topic that is

major factor in this play, the future plays in the tetralogy, and something that Shakespeare made

a point about is the divine right of kings. The divine right of kings was a political and religious

belief for the royalty legitimacy. It stated that the right to rule was given directly from God and

it was passed down by blood, meaning from parent to child. Based on this belief, King Richard

II was the rightful king of England, but that was the only thing going for him. Overall, King

Richard II was not a good king. One reason that King Richard was not a good king was that he

had too big of an ego. A king should be confident, but Richard was too much. He believed

heavily in the divine right of kings so much that he thought that he was God’s gift to the world.

In Act 3 scene 2, Richard II says, “Not all the water in the rough rude sea / Can wash the balm

off from an anointed king; / The breath of worldly men cannot depose / The deputy elected by

the Lord” (King Richard the Second Act 3. 2. 52- 55). In the Bible, water is the most chaotic

force, not even God himself can destroy or create it, but he can control it. By saying that not

even the most chaotic waters can destroy the anointed king, meaning Richard himself, means that

Richard believes that he is that close to God in power and that he is some divine human. If that

doesn’t scream ego, I don’t know what does. Another problem with Richard II is that he lacks

control over his people. Right off the bat from the very first scene. When the glove throwing

ceremony is going on, it seems like Richard is trying to tell Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas

Mowbray what to do, but they don’t listen to him. He tries to have them make peace and avoid a

duel, but they still don’t listen. Eventually, Richard gives up and goes along with them. Richard

even says in his last lines how he has no control over them, “We were not born to sue, but to

4

command; - / which since we cannot do to make you friends, / … since we cannot atone you, we

shall see / justice design the victor’s chivalry” (King Richard the Second Act 1. 1. 198- 205).

He, as a king, should have their attention and respect. It just seems likes they will just ignore

him and do what they please. Having an ego and not having any control over his people are not

Richard’s only flaws. He was stealing land from the nobles, secretly having the nobles killed as

well, lacked any political decision-making skills, and took money from the already poor which is

said to be one of the worst traits a ruler could have. What Shakespeare is trying to point out with

all of these flaws is that you can’t just have the divine right of kings to be a good king. You need

to have first-rate political decision-making abilities as well.

King Henry IV, a.k.a. Henry Bolingbroke, is King Richard II’s foil. What Richard

lacked, Henry IV has and vice-versa. Unlike Richard, Henry is favored by the people, especially

the common people. Richard even knows this as he expresses his concern that the people love

Bolingbroke more than him in Act 1. 4 in King Richard the Second:

“Observed his courtship to the common people; / How he did seem to dive into

their hearts with humble and familiar courtesy; / … With ‘Thanks, my

countrymen, my loving / friends; / As were our England in reversion his, / And he

our subjects’ next degree in hope” (King Richard the Second Act 1. 4. 23-36).

When Henry Bolingbroke becomes king, he is aware of the necessity of having the

people’s support. Having this knowledge will lead him to make decisions based on what will

benefit the people, something that Richard didn’t have. This awareness stems from the factor

that Henry knows that he doesn’t have the divine right of kings, which is his weakness. Henry

IV knows that this illegitimacy will be a problem for him, quite possibly for his entire reign.

Because of his illegitimate claim to the throng, Henry IV’s reign is tainted with disorder. Henry

5

IV knows that some people in his kingdom are still salted over the fact that he stole the crown

and had some connection to the murder of Richard II. He recognizes the fact that he has to win

the people over, and one of the most popular ways a ruler would do that is by going on a

campaign. Not like an election campaign, but a crusade, specifically a crusade to the Holy Land.

Henry IV has the political wisdom to know how to win the people over and make his mark as a

king of England. Henry IV also knows how to handle the nobles, unlike Richard II. In Act 4.1

from King Richard the Second, Henry, before he becomes king, is able to control the Duke of

Surrey, Lord Fitzwater, and the Duke of Aumerle. “These differences shall all rest under gage /

Till Norfolk be repeal’d: repeal’d he shall be, / And, though mine enemy, restored again / To all

his lands and signories: when he’s return’d, Against Aumerle we will enforce his trial” (King

Richard the Second Act 4. 1. 86- 90). This just shows that Henry IV knew what he was doing as

a ruler. This was how Shakespeare showed how a ruler of England should act and how he

should be. The only thing missing was the divine right to rule.

Prince Hal is Shakespeare’s example of what a ruler should be like. Hal is the perfect

combination of King Richard II and King Henry IV. He has great political decision-making

abilities, is a good military strategist, has a good relationship (better than his father’s) with the

common people, and he has a good legitimate claim to the throne. Like his father before him,

Hal realizes the importance of having the common people supporting him. He didn’t have the

nobles backing him, at least at the time when he was still going to the local tavern. The nobles

believed he was just a rebellious teenager that wasn’t cut out to wear the crown, but like most

nobles, they would be easy to persuade to his side when he showed his true self. In Act 1. 2 in

The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, Hal reveals to the audience his plan that he has had all

along:

6

“So, when this loose behavior I throw off, / And pay the debt I never promised, /

By how much better than my word I am, / By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;

/ And, like bright metal on a sullen ground, / My reformation, glittering o’er my

fault, / Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / Than that which hath no

foil to set if off. / I’ll so offend, to make offence a skill; / Redeeming time, when

men think least I will” (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth Act 1. 2. 214-

221).

Like the perfect underdog he is, when the throne calls, he will answer, transforming into

the king the kingdom needs with the support from the common people. He does fulfill this plan.

In Act 4. 1 of The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, Sir Richard Vernon, a noble, describes to

Hotspur how Prince Hal looked on the battlefield, “Rise from the ground like feather’d

Mercury, / And vaulted with such ease into his seat, / As if an angel dropt down from the

clouds, / To turn and wind a fiery Pegasus, / And witch the world with noble horsemanship”

(The First Part of King Henry the Fourth Act 4. 1. 106 -110). Similar to King Richard II when

he compared himself to God implying that he was a divine being as well, Prince Hal is compared

to a divine being as well. The difference is that someone else is comparing Hal to an angel, he

isn’t doing it himself. It makes it more sincere and true, but someone trying to boast their own

ego. To have the nobles and the common people admire the future king is something that a ruler

should try to achieve.

One history note, at the time that Shakespeare was writing the tetralogy, Queen Elizabeth

I was nearing the end of her reign, and she did not have an era. There was a lot of concern with

the people about who would take over once Elizabeth I left. Shakespeare was complimenting on

what the next ruler should be with the tetralogy. He was saying that the ruler must have divine

7

authority and should be able to make first-rate political decisions. King Henry V was his

example.

King Henry V was Shakespeare’s example of a perfect king. The way the three plays

were set up were to show the audience different portrayals of four different kings, each one

getting closer to the “perfect king” goal. You started off with King Lear, who was an unnatural

king and was at the bottom of the pyramid. Then you get Richard II, whose only strength was

that he had a legitimate claim to the throne. Next you had King Henry IV, was great in every

sense except for the fact that he didn’t have a legitimate claim to the throne. Finally, at the very

top of the pyramid, King Henry V, Shakespeare’s representation of what a king should be like.

8

Work Cited

1. Shakespeare, William. "King Lear." The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New

York City: Barnes & Noble, 1994. N. pag. Print.

2. Shakespeare, William. "King Richard the Second." The Complete Works of William

Shakespeare. New York City: Barnes & Noble, 1994. N. pag. Print.

3. Shakespeare, William. "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth." The Complete Works

of William Shakespeare. New York City: Barnes & Noble, 1994. N. pag. Print.