I found the text very difficult to read and understand. Like Jessina, I also found the story weak on some parts.  Obviously, the duel in Act I, scene iii showed Richard’s incompetence as a wise leader.  He makes unnecessary decisions too little too late.  Clearly Richard is not smart.  As shown in Act II, scene ii, he leaves England with the entire army leaving the country, basically, vulnerable to any and all attacks.  The man is also quite fickle. At one moment he rashly denounces Bagot, Bushy, and Greene and the next moment (after learning the the whole truth) Richard rambles on about the sadness of their death.  I was happy knowing that Richard will be overthrown.  However, Henry Bolingbroke is not a good replacement.  He seems to be full of it.  Instead of acting like a grown man who might be seen to be a good leader,  Bolingbroke acts childishly when accusing Mowbray of treachery (Act I, scene i).  With no proof to support his accusation, Bolingbroke uses violence as the only way to solve such issues of honor.  Then, after the duel, instead of bearing the punishment and going into exile, like Mowbray had, Bolingbroke needs to dramatically walk away by moaning and complaining.  Moreover, if Bolingbroke’s only intention was to gain back his lost property, then there should be no need to execute so many people and imprison the king. Henry was being very deceptive when giving Richard his ultimatum.  Lying is not a good characteristic for a ruler since it’s a sign of a coward.