Reddit Reddit reviews Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama

We found 1 Reddit comments about Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Literature & Fiction
Books
Dramas & Plays
Shakespeare Dramas & Plays
Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama
Check price on Amazon

1 Reddit comment about Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama:

u/Sima_Hui ยท 2 pointsr/shakespeare

This line of thinking has been taken even further by some scholars, creating an arc for the entire contiguous series of history plays.

Starting in Richard II, the legitimate throne is usurped by Henry Bolingbroke. He attempts to justify this act to man and God, but his reign is plagued with rebellion and unrest because he has destroyed the natural and divine succession of the English throne. His successor, Henry V is portrayed in Shakespeare as a hero to the English people, and of critical importance, incredibly pious after his "conversion" from that of a trouble-maker upon assuming the throne. He builds numerous churches and supports multitudes of people who pray for forgiveness for his father's actions in usurping Richards crown. In lieu of this, God grants him victory at Agincourt.

But his pious reign is short-lived. The fact remains that the Henrys sit on an illegitimate throne. Henry V dies young, and his son, Henry VI sees great turmoil, losing his father's gains in France as well as serious unrest at home. This period then culminates in the ultimate punishment of the English people for their illegitimate kings in the form of the murderous and misshapen Richard III. A villain without equal who is eventually toppled and replaced by none other than Queen Elizabeth's granddad, Henry VII. Henry VII's claim to the throne is the "true" claim, derived from Old John of Gaunt, the legitimate Edward III's son.

Thus, it is the Tudors who rise to return the line of succession to it's true heirs, restoring the legitimate English monarchy, preserving God's mandate in England, and bringing in an age of prosperity and stability under the current queen.

However believable all that may be, it seems a reasonable arc for a playwright who is portraying the history of relatively recent leaders under the scrutiny of his own monarch, and one that seems to support divine right and the natural laws of succession. And yet, /u/DaitoRyu, you are right in asserting that Shakespeare has a certain knack for portraying the humanity and fallibility of his heroes, even those with a crown on their head. If you ask me, Shakespeare's incredible skill at portraying genuine and fully-developed characters was so unavoidable, that he gave his kings and queens these flaws and touches of humanity in spite of himself, even as he wrote a narrative that supported and perpetuated the idea of divine right.

Whatever conclusion you reach, it is a rich area for debate. We will never truly know Shakespeare's intentions in his writings, but much time and energy has been spent on trying to assert them, and more will undoubtedly follow. I can't remember if this text deals with this matter or not, but I think it does, and either way, it is an immeasurably useful resource when studying Shakespeare's histories, and also a quick read. Check it out! Shakespeare's English Kings