I think that this play really allows the reader think about the essential question, “What makes a good ruler?” Even nowadays, if you were to ask someone, “What are some qualities and characteristics of a good ruler?” I’m sure there would be answers such as: intelligent, personable, fair, consistent, mature, connected to his country, and capable of taking on the monstrous task of ruling a country. If keeping these virtues in mind and comparing them to Richard as a ruler, he does not live up to these foundational attributes. This boils down to, is Richard a sufficient ruler? Would Bolingbrook be a good ruler? Are either of them suitable to rule England?
Richard proves to be an inconsistent, wishy-washy, and unfair character. We can see all of these traits in this exchange with Bolingbroke. At first, Richard banished Bolingbroke for 10 years. So after, he changes his mind and decides that he banishment will only last for six years. This change of heart clearly illustrates how he is inconsistent. Richard had made a ruling, but with little notice, he went back on his word and changed his verdict. This change shows that Richard cannot stick to the decisions he makes. Not only is he inconsistent with his ruling, he is unfair. Bolingbroke receives 10 years; however, Mowbray is banished of life. His ruling is obviously unfair, especially that both committed the same “crime.”
All of these troubling traits that Richard embodies, may make the reader question Richard’s title as King. It also may spark thinking that Bolingbrook is a better candidate for King. In one of Richard’s rants he explains how the people of the country like Bolingbrook. He is more appealing to them. Bolingbrook appears to relate to them more so than Richard and acknowledge their existence. But does this make him a better ruler?
It is obvious that this play brings up the validity of a ruler, and asks the read to consider the qualities that make for the best King. It makes us question: Is Richard a good ruler? Would Bolingbrook be better? Perhaps someone else entirely would do a better job at being the King of England than either one of them could possibly do? The text asks us to reflect on this proposition, and calls upon us to look at the evidence the text presents and make a decision for ourselves.
3 comments:
I agree that this play brings up the issue of what makes a good ruler. Another point against Richard is that he is irresponsible with his war strategy. While focusing on the war in Ireland with all of his troops and money (and the money of his people) Bolingbroke can easily take advantage.
I agree that Richard is not a good ruler, but he realizes this. Maybe he gives up his crown because he feels Henry can do a better job than him. It is possible he does this for the betterment of the country he once ruled. He still seems to care for his country, although he gives the crown.
Great questions here: What makes a good king? Can an individual ruler overcome the inherent limitations of the system he or she rules under? Does a change in ruler mean a change in politics?
These sound like the kinds of questions we discuss in contemporary American government!
Post a Comment