1

856-685-0741
Professor Amy Mathur
EN 341 Shakespearean Drama
5 May 2016
Shakespeares 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 Lears reign was a good one, as far as we the readers know.
There isnt 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 Lears
youngest daughter, Cordelia. Everything seems to fall down once the play starts. Immediately

we see some of Lears 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 wasnt 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 cant tell what true love is and what is not. He accepts Gonerils and Regans
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 doesnt stop there. When Kent, Lears 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 Lears 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 Lears personality and reasoning 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 Gods 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
doesnt scream ego, I dont 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 dont listen to him. He tries to have them make peace and avoid a
duel, but they still dont 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

command; - / which since we cannot do to make you friends, / since we cannot atone you, we
shall see / justice design the victors 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
Richards 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 cant 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 IIs 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
peoples support. Having this knowledge will lead him to make decisions based on what will
benefit the people, something that Richard didnt have. This awareness stems from the factor
that Henry knows that he doesnt 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 IVs reign is tainted with disorder. Henry

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 repeald: repeald he shall be, / And, though mine enemy, restored again / To all
his lands and signories: when hes returnd, 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 Shakespeares 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 fathers) 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 didnt 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 wasnt 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:

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 mens hopes;
/ And, like bright metal on a sullen ground, / My reformation, glittering oer my
fault, / Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / Than that which hath no
foil to set if off. / Ill 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. 214221).
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 featherd
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 isnt
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

authority and should be able to make first-rate political decisions. King Henry V was his
example.
King Henry V was Shakespeares 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 didnt have a legitimate claim to the throne. Finally, at the very
top of the pyramid, King Henry V, Shakespeares representation of what a king should be like.

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.