Forness 1
Matt Forness
Shakespeare Lit
Professor Bleck
10 March 2011
Of Trees and Traitors
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, a well played line from Die
Another Day, illustrates the idea that the idea of perspective. On one hand a leader may see his
throne being threatened, while others perceive the act as the removal of a tyrant. A king maybe
viewed as the “divine ruler” but throughout Shakespeare’s plays, Hamlet, Richard II, and Henry
V, we see that even though they have “claim” they are not the most competent of people, so
when all three eventually lose power (and lives) are played off to be more relieving to most than
tragic. The articles “Divine Right in Richard II and Henry V by William Shakespeare”, written
by Nicole Smith, as well as “Usurpation in Hamlet and Richard II” (El Rincón del Vago). It is
therefore arguable that even though a king may have blood claim to a throne, there are times
when a bad leader must be removed for the good of the people. This is just another of
Shakespeare’s revolutionary ideas that are eventually realized by numerous democracies. (and
dictatorships)
In Nicole Smith’s article, “Divine Right in "Richard II" and "Henry V" by William
Shakespeare”, she explained both rulers had rights to the throne, but due to poor leadership, their
downfalls were “justified”. Both plays show how the king is the subject of much judgment,
based on actions and mistakes. The idea that “blood” is an important part of the monarchy is very
relevant in the plays, but Shakespeare twists it around making the audience wonder when does
“divine right” stop justifying poor decisions. This idea, “divine right” is also conflicting with the
Forness 2
idea of morality and what is “right” versus tradition. People in Richard II found it difficult to act
against him, even though they thought he was a bad ruler. Even members if the church agreed
that Richard had to go. However, the Bishop believed that his right was given to him by God and
that was who belonged in power. Henry was able to claim the throne, for he was a male heir and
a female was unfit to lead. He has a drastic personality change and become arrogant and
eventually cruel. The Duchess, in Richard II, unsuccessfully tries to convince Guant that Richard
has to go by mentioning that the “tree may be rotting from the inside”, i.e. the family tree. The
that just because someone has the blood of another king, does not make them fit to rule again,
another drastic idea from Shakespeare. In Richard II, Richard’s “realization”, and eventually
stepping down, are both great examples of this and Smith argues her case masterfully.
The article “Usurpation in Hamlet and Richard II” talks about the downfall of, well
Hamlet and Richard II. Hamlet’s madness was driven by his desire for revenge and the idea of
moving on. “His wanting of revenge was both irrational and rational feeling both hatred for his
uncle and that he was obligated to reclaim that which was his fathers.” (Paraphrased) That,
alongside the inner doubt are enough to drive anyone to go mad, he eventually loses the throne to
Claudius. In Richard II, he steps down and then Henry Bolingbrook, Henry IV takes over. The
symbolism the author noted, involved the representation of classes in society. The older people,
represented the old ways of doing things, the Duchess, was an example of the “opposing view”,
while Henry was the new way of looking at things. Both Henry and Richard were opposites, in
the ways that Richard relied on language, and Henry knew how to run a country. Richard lacked
the “empathy of the people and efficiency of management” to rule the kingdom well. The author
notes that the sun symbolizes Richard’s “slow and eventual” fall from power. By the end of the
play the son is seemingly on Henry and Richard is left in the dark. The other symbol they
Forness 3
mention is when he falls down to the Welch soil, because it was Henry having the Welch at his
back who dethroned him. This author also brings up the idea of divine right versus seized power,
and again sides with decent leadership being more important. Both Henry and Richard seem to
alternate who is the victim and who is the antagonist. Richard screws over Bolingbrook and
Mavolo in the beginning, while Richard eventually loses the throne to Bolingbrook. The scene
where the crown is held by both men, the author notes, could symbolize the dividing of England
and the "War of the Roses".
When reading the play Richard II, it seemed as though Shakespeare didn’t really care for
the idea of someone being in power just because they were born into nobility. Richard’s poor
decisions, horrible behavior, and his incompetence seem to be symbolic of everything a king
should not be. Such as, wanting to take money from the people to fund the war, the treasury was
broke due to his reckless spending. When he hears that Gaunt is dying he replies:
Now put it, God, in the physician's mind
To help him to his grave immediately!
The lining of his coffers shall make coats
To deck our soldiers for these Irish wars.
Come, gentlemen, let's all go visit him:
Pray God we may make haste, and come too late! (Richard II I.iv.58-63)
When he steals Bolingbrook’s land after exiling him, even his people find that to be not right.
This is also, arguably, a way for the audience to side with Bolingbrook early, because he
eventually claims the throne from Richard. The idea that Richard’s bloodline was not enough of
an argument to keep his wrongdoings from going unnoticed was a concept that Smith sided with.
"This is clearly a leader who believes himself to have the powers of life and death that God
Forness 4
posses and that he can get away with such acts because of his divinely elected position" (Smith)
When reading through Henry V some of Henry’s ideas could have been justified as an “ends
justify the means” but they eventually turn towards cruel, and audience members are fine with
his eventual downfall. Even though there is an heir to the throne in Henry V, the successor is
female, and that is the only reason Henry even has a shot. Still, upon his gain of power his
personality shifts and he becomes a horrendous individual. This article argues that a bad leader
by blood should be removed if there is a more competent leader out there. Both plays seem to
show their monarch’s demise as positive, though not necessarily promoting their successors, but
hey, that’s politics.
Following suite to the previous article, " Usurpation in Hamlet and Richard II" took a
look at the usurpation of two leaders, Hamlet's uncle, Claudius, and Richard. The part that is
interesting about the two people who are trying to gain power, is that Hamlet has legitimacy,
while Henry has more of a distant blood relationship. Both Henry and Hamlet have a vendetta
against their chosen targets, showing their aspirations may not be entirely noble. Though, their
demises, both brought upon themselves. Richard did a lovely job of pissing off all of the
common people, and when Henry went on his conquest the people just let him pass on through.
" Tis thought the king is dead; we will not stay.
The bay-trees in our country are all wither'd/
Farewell: our countrymen are gone and fled,
As well assured Richard their king is dead." (Richard II II.iv.7-8/16-17)
This quote was interesting, because his own army joined Henry's after hearing that Richard was
"dead". The loyalty of his friends and followers waning, upon the time of his dethroning, most
people accepted it. While others, in defense of Richard, could only justify his "kingship" by his
Forness 5
blood, and not of his virtues. The article seems to infer that this wasn't fully a bad idea, the
removal of Richard. Which is why it relates well with the other article, as well as the topic as a
whole. Divine right is not a true reason for someone to have power, and if a leader is no longer
doing what is in the people's best interest, his removal may be necessary.
Both articles seemed like they went hand in hand. Smith’s article seemed to argue the
idea that the old style of a hand me down crown was only asking for trouble, while the other
article claimed that there are times when bad people should be removed from office. The
relevance of both of these articles can be clearly seen today. There have been numerous countries
ruled by dictators that the US has “assisted” in the elimination of. However, similar to the events
of the plays, the successors’ successors, don’t necessary become the greatest people. (Again look
to some of the "liberated" Latin American countries) Also, just looking at our presidencies, the
people have the right to impeach the president if we feel that they are acting more retarded than
usual. Though staging a coup could be entertaining. It is arguable both ways on the means of
removal of poor leaders; however, during the time when these plays took place, there weren’t
any voting booths or congressmen they could complain to. Though I guess when Bolingbrook
amassed an army, the people just let him through and didn’t complain. Well, I guess their
impeachment process involved creating another faction to decimate the former. We should fully
endorse this idea in modern times.
Forness 6
Works Cited
Smith. Nicole. "Divine Right in "Richard II" and "Henry V" by William Shakespeare" 2010.
Article Myriad. http://www.articlemyriad.com/209.htm
Author Unknown. "Usurpation in Hamlet and Richard II"
http://html.rincondelvago.com/hamlet_ricard-ii_william-shakespeare.html