Divine Right of Kings implied Essay

Published: 2020-04-22 08:26:25
652 words
3 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Bolingbroke

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

Shakespeares Tragedy of King Richard II drips with references to the divine right of kings and the appropriate response of passive obedience by a kings subjects, as it explores the implications of Richards involvement in the murder of Thomas of Woodstock, Duck of Gloucester, and Bolingbrokes revenge for that murder: the overthrowing of King Richard II. Numerous characters speak of the strong parallel between God and the king, but none approach the subject quite as directly as the Bishop of Carlisle does in his speech condemning Bolingbrokes acceptance of Richards invitation to ascend the throne in Act IV, scene 1 of the play.

After meeting with Bolingbroke at Flint Castle and agreeing to return his land and inheritance to him, King Richard asks Bolingbroke if he must return with him to London. Bolingbroke says yes, and Richard understands that he must resign the throne. The Duke of York returns to Westminster Hall, declaring that Richard has resigned the throne to Bolingbroke. Upon hearing this, Bolingbroke consents, In Gods name, Ill ascend the regal throne (IV. i, 114). This infuriates the bishop, who begins his dialogue. The speech begins with an oath, Marry, a strong indication that the bishop feels very strongly about the subject at hand.

He continues, explaining that despite of his low rank and because of his position as a clergyman, he is most suited to address the actions at hand: Worst in this royal presence may I speak, / Yet best beseeming me to speak the truth (116-117). This proclamation demonstrates that the position he is taking is a moral position, one that should be addressed to Christians by church officials. In fact, Bevington informs in his introduction to Richard II that parishioners were familiar with the doctrine, for they heard it in church periodically in official homilies against rebellion (722).

Therefore, Carlisle is clearly not out of line in speaking to the issue. He asserts that none of the present nobility is really noble, as they do not have forbearance from so foul a wrong (121) as to show so heinous, black, obscene a deed as to judge their king, much less when he is not even present (132). Using rhetorical questions, Carlisle makes it clear that each man has a duty to his king: What subject can give sentence on his king? / And who sits here that is not Richards subject? (122-3).

Of course, no man is not a subject of the king, who Carlisle reminds the Bolingbroke and the lords is the figure of Gods majesty, / His [Gods] captain, steward, deputy elect, / Anointed, crowned, (126-8, emphasis added). The bishop continues, proclaiming that Henry Bolingbroke Is a foul traitor to proud Herefords king (136). Carlisles declaration is obviously based upon the ideas of the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience. According to Bevington, the church asserted that God permits evil rulers to govern, because God wishes to test a people or to punish them for waywardness (723).

The appropriate response from the people would be to ask for Gods forgiveness and then to patiently wait for Gods forgiveness. The people understood that they were to have faith that Gods plan was for their best. [Should this be the first paragraph following the introduction? ] While Carlisles (and several other characters) position asserting that passive obedience, as Bevington points out, the moderate position between the extremes of tyranny and rebellion, greatly affects the audiences response to the play, readers must be careful not to consider it Shakespeares position (723).

The accepted moral standards of the church are called into question; when Bolingbroke ascends the throne, becoming King Henry IV, does his ascension assert that God has divinely appointed him king and that Richard must now submit to his authority? Whether audiences choose to see Henrys usurpation of the throne as rebellion against God or appoint by God, Carlisles speech will elicit great thought on the matter, providing justification for the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read