However, this belief that monarchs are selected and sustained by God does not placate all of Richard's subjects; fed up with his poor ruling, they embrace Bolingbroke as an honorable contender to Richard's judgments. By honorable contender, I mean that Bolingbroke's claim to his father's estate is valid. However, monarchs over the ages have taken what they want without regard to proper ownership, and their claims have often gone unchallenged. Why then is Richard being challenged on this particular count of corruption? Why is the usurped land not chalked up to a perk of his divine authority?
I believe that Richard's unwillingness to listen to outside advice or requests allows him to be deposed from the throne. Placing the utmost faith in his own judgments because of his divine appointment, Richard ignores Gaunt's warning to seek honest, not flattering tongues to avoid driving England into ruin. He also ignores Bolingbroke's pleas for the assets that are rightfully his, a move that paints him as a tyrant in the public's eye. Even his once-devoted subjects like York abandon him once they realize the king is deaf, "stopp'd with other flattering sounds." Though divine authority is a compelling reason to follow a ruler, it cannot satisfy a country looking for a leader to put its best interests at heart.
That's really true Erin. I think that the downfall of Richard II was that, while incredibly happy to receive flattery, he was unable to successfully flatter his subjects in return. Going along with the subjects ability to revolt against him and choose someone that leads for the common good, I thought it was interesting how the word blood appeared over and over again, especially when referring to the royal blood in Richard and in Bolingbroke. Because other people other than just the king have this royal blood within them there will always be the option of not only successors but disposers to the current king.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It is clear that one of the things that led to his downfall is his inability to listen to the counsel of others. I would have to learn more about the histories of monarchies in Europe, but from the play it seemed that Richard was worse than other leaders who were up for a land grab. From his constant, meaningless taxation of his subjects for a purposeless war to the banishment of Bolingbroke and Mowbray, it seems to me that Richard was, on every level, a really awful leader. I certainly agree that his inability to listen to other's wise ideas was one of the things that led to Bolingbroke usurping the crown.
ReplyDelete