Richard II

4 Pages 902 Words

Richard II is sometimes seen as a problem of conflicting values of obedience to a divinely appointed king and of a country’s need for a strong, just, and ruler. By bowing down to the needs of his subjects, a king allows others to dictate his actions and hence compromises the essence of his power. Ironically, failing to heed the desires of his subjects transforms a king into a self-indulgent tyrant and propels his kingdom towards ruin and decay. Can a sovereign rule his subjects without considering their general welfare? If a king rules unconscionably, do his subjects have the right to replace him? In the play Richard II, Richard is not at all a man of his action. Whenever a problem arises, he talks to himself or the surrounding people, but does not do anything to resolve the problem. He is not ready to stand up and do something about it, and instead complains about the situation to himself. It is because of this trait that Richard loses the kingship of England, and Bolingbroke, a man who is always ready to take action when a problem arises wins the throne over Richard.
In the first scene, where Bolingbroke accuses Mowbray of killing Gloucester, Richard plays a major part in the action and at first look, gives the fascade of being a man of action because of his handling of the Mowbray-Bolingbroke situation. When Richard pronounces that Mowbray and Bolingbroke shall fight to the death "At Coventry upon St. Lambert's Day" (I, i, 199), the reader could mistake this act of showmanship as the act of a leader who was ready to stand up and take action when a problem arises. However, in Act 1 scene 3, Richard's order for Mowbray and Bolingbroke's lives to answer their blame was only to fuel Richard's own desire to be the centre of attention; it was his showman quality that leads him to do this, not his ability to take action when a situation that required good leadership skills arose.
A true man of action would not simply accept what was hap...