The Qualities of Kingship in Hamlet and King Richard II
Hamlet and Richard II contain many parallels and oppositions. Both are set in
unstable worlds, with the action centring on the deposition and destruction of a King,
and moving towards an overthrow of power. Many of the characters’ roles are the
same in each play – old King, new King, campaigner against the King – but our
heroes’ intentions are altogether divided; one is compelled to ‘kill a king’, the other
desperate to preserve one.
In this respect, Claudius and Richard have a common goal, and as they are both on the
throne initially, they invite comparison. Claudius is undoubtedly the better ruler.
This immediately undermines the importance of legitimacy; despite seizing power
through fratricide, Claudius is far more efficient than Richard, legitimate heir to the
throne. This fratricide, however repugnant, offers some example of Claudius’s skill;
he murders his brother, marries the widow, and seizes the crown, while the people
applaud him as their new King. This suggests either his immense stealth in
committing the crime, or his power of intimidation, or both.
Claudius’s speeches are kingly in the sense that they are authoritative and somewhat
lacking in humanity. He does not show emotion, and adamantly speaks out against
excessive grief in his first scene:
‘It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschooled.’1
1
Hamlet, I.ii.95-97
His words are never challenged; he silently commands agreement. Occasionally, he
allows himself to express his true feelings without restraint, but this occurs only after
the revelation of the play within the play. Claudius had perhaps considered himself
safe from exposure, having committed the murder so efficiently, as it is unlikely he
would expect his dead brother’s ghost to be Hamlet’s informer. As a result of this
sudden and unlikely collapse of his carefully established security, his language
deviates briefly from that of the regal importance he exemplifies:
‘Oh wretched state! Oh bosom black as death!
Oh limed soul that struggling to be free
Art more engaged! Help, angels!’2
This visceral outbreak of desperation is quickly contained within calmer language,
however, by Claudius’s next words of ‘make assay’. Even his most distressed state is
laced with practicality; his reason does not allow his emotion to perform. It is perhaps
this quality that makes him so effective as King, for there is a sense in both Hamlet
and Richard II that lack of humanity makes for a more efficient ruler.
Whatever Richard’s faults may be, lack of emotion is certainly not one of them. It is
an amalgamation of small flaws that makes him a bad King, flaws that seem trivial
when not magnified by the requirements of kingship. His biggest mistake is his
fascination and love of status; his first scene is an entirely unnecessary display of his
power as King, interrupting Mowbray and Bolingbroke’s confrontation with selfimportant assertions and unhelpful suggestions such as ‘Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be
ruled by me’ and ‘Rage must be withstood’. Although comic and endearing, his love
of pomp and circumstance is not only pointless, it is highly detrimental to his position
2
Hamlet, III.iii.67-69
as King. Gaunt is highly critical of Richard’s love of excess, and prophesies his
downfall at his own hands:
‘His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,
For violent fires soon burn out themselves;
Small showers last long but sudden storms are short;
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder.’3
However, Richard’s belief in his own invulnerability is so unwavering, and Gaunt’s
condemnation of him so fierce, that Richard merely denounces his uncle as a ‘lunatic
lean-witted fool’. Continuing in his wave of recklessness, Richard seizes all of
Gaunt’s land to fund his war in Ireland. This decision is universally disparaged by the
King’s advisors, and the Duke of York pleads in desperation for the rights of Gaunt
and Bolingbroke:
‘Is Gaunt not dead? And doth not Hereford live?
Was Gaunt not just? And is not Harry true?
Did not the one deserve to have an heir?
Is not his heir a well-deserving son?’4
These six questions indicate York’s incredulity that Richard could even suggest such
a blatant abuse of power. Richard, however, discards his critics with ‘Think what you
will’, and leaves the scene oblivious to the disaster he has effectively set in motion.
Although as yet unaware of his imminent deposition, he unwittingly foretells of it in
his final line:
‘Be merry, for our time of stay is short.’
3
4
King Richard II, II.i.33-37
King Richard II, II.i.191-194
By the time he returns from Ireland, Richard’s ‘stay’ as King will essentially be over,
and Bolingbroke will be in power.
Many comparisons can be drawn between Bolingbroke and Hamlet. They are both
potential Kings (Bolingbroke by design, Hamlet perhaps only by coincidence) and
they are both chiefly concerned with the destruction of their existing rulers, both of
whom they are highly dissimilar to. However, it is Bolingbroke who usurps the
throne, and Bolingbroke who makes the better leader.
Bolingbroke is practical in his ideas and blunt in his speech. Where Richard
persuades with vivid imagery, Bolingbroke convinces with reason. He speaks his
mind without ceremony, and the ‘wrongs’ Richard has done him earn him an
automatic degree of respect:
‘My father’s good are all distrained and sold,
And these, and all, are all amiss employed.
What would you have me do?’5
In response to this, even the Duke of York is forced to admit that he can appreciate
‘the issue of these arms’, and Bolingbroke wins another ally. He is already a
favourite with the general population, for with Richard refusing to acknowledge that
anyone may have power other than himself, Bolingbroke galvanises the people into a
‘revolt’ against him. He is able to do this so easily due to a combination of his own
understanding of the importance of public opinion, and Richard’s utter inability to
recognise any power other than his own.
5
King Richard II, II.iii.131-133
Hamlet and Bolingbroke are opposites in the sense that one is a man of thought and
the other a man of action. Much of Hamlet centres around the eponymous character’s
inability to commit to his act of revenge:
‘I do not know
Why yet I live to say ‘This thing’s to do’,
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do’t.’6
This aspect of his character, where his mind is so ‘sicklied o’er with the pale cast of
thought’ it denies him senseless action, is not necessarily a quality akin to kingship.
Hamlet can act cruelly, but he is neither ruthless nor detached; he is always
emotionally involved, whether he is being motivated by love, fear, confusion, anger,
or frustration. His unpredictability would render him a liability as a King. When not
wallowing in melancholy, he takes great delight in assuming his ‘antic disposition’,
which, although witty and entertaining, would not earn him any respect. A good King
cannot be too openly playful if he wishes to command his people with any authority.
The most obvious character comparison to make is, of course, between Hamlet and
Richard. Ironically, our title characters are the least fit for kingship of those
mentioned. Their responsibility is to engage the audience’s sympathy, so that we may
empathise with their failings and engage with their sufferings. In this way, it follows
that the most sympathetic characters benefit from being the most incompetent,
provided that their goodness always outweighs their ineptitude.
6
Hamlet, IV.iv.43-46
The first two acts of Richard II expose the astonishing lengths of the King’s
ineffectiveness, but in Act III his character deepens. He displays a huge range of
emotion when forced to confront the facts of Bolingbroke’s flattening invasion, and
conveys his despair beautifully:
‘But now the blood of twenty thousand men
Did triumph in my face, and they are fled;
And till so much blood thither come again,
Have I not reason to look pale and dead?’7
The play is coloured by the beauty of Richard’s language; although unnecessary, his
words are melodious, and the audience admires him for his talent. Although he fails
in his requirements as King, he fulfils his duty as our hero by engaging the audience’s
sympathy despite his mistakes. There is also a sense that these mistakes can be
understood. Richard is not alone in the belief of his divine appointment as ‘deputy
elected by the Lord’; this idea runs through the entire play, and is one of the chief
arguments against the treatment of Richard;
‘shall the figure of God’s majesty,
His captain, steward, deputy elect,
Anointed, crowned, planted many years,
Be judged by subject and inferior breath,
And he himself not present?’8
Richard can be forgiven to some extent for his arrogance and excessive commands,
for although his advisors do contradict him, his court is shrouded in the belief of his
divine appointment and power. It is only Gaunt who speaks explicitly of the
limitations of Richard’s power:
7
8
King Richard II, III.ii.76-79
King Richard II, IV,i,126-130
‘Shorten my days thou canst with sullen sorrow,
And pluck nights from me, but not lend me a morrow.
Thou canst help Time to furrow me with age,
But stop no wrinkle in his pilgrimage;
Thy word is current with him for my death,
But dead, thy kingdom cannot buy my breath.’9
Hamlet impresses the audience with the combination of his sharp wit and raw
emotion. His character is baffling, far more so than Richard, and the audience
therefore feels a great desire to understand him. Hamlet’s soliloquies are central to
his engagement of audience sympathy, for it is through them we gain a glimpse into
the character that confuses and excites us, and as a result, they are vivid expressions
of his emotion:
‘O that this too too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter. O God, God,
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!’10
It seems that, in Richard II and Hamlet, our heroes are the greatest, and their flaws the
most sympathetic, when they do not possess the qualities of kingship that succeed in
their world. In these two plays, ruthlessness and practicality are paramount to a
successful ruler, yet would often dehumanise the title character. By the end of
9
King Richard II, I.iii.227-232
Hamlet, I.ii.129-134
10
Hamlet, it is Fortinbras who finally ascends the throne, the cardboard cut-out of an
action man. Hamlet himself requests that he rule with his ‘dying voice’; he can
recognise some qualities of kingship in Fortinbras he doesn’t display himself. His
lack is the audience’s gain, however, for although we love to watch the fall of a King,
we become far more involved with the fall of a man.