It’s only after this scene that we see Richard’s true nature. We learn of his plan to fund Irish wars using the money from Gaunt’s estate after his death, even though the money rightfully belongs to Bullingbrook. Not even Gaunt’s deathbed accusations and insults can guilt Richard into doing the right thing. He’s almost Machiavellian in the respect that he will do what he sees fit for his country whether or not it’s morally sound. This sort of hubris usually leads to some formidable tragedies in drama, so it will be interesting to see what troubles come to King Richard.
Richard: Hero or Villain?
I’ve always found Shakespeare difficult to read but ultimately rewarding in the end, and so far Richard II hasn’t changed my perception. I think the sudden change in King Richard’s character in the first two acts is really interesting. At first, Richard seems like everything one would expect from a king. He is fair and compassionate in letting Bullingbrook and Mowbray each say their piece without showing any partiality and seems genuinely aggrieved when they resort to a duel. Later, in what seems like a demonstration of wise leadership, he banishes both men instead of shedding blood (though it’s debatable whether exile is a more favorable sentence) and shows mercy to Gaunt, lessening his misery by shortening his son Bullingbrook’s banishment.
After discovering Richard’s true nature, I thought it was weird that he decided to banish Bolingbroke and Mowbray instead of letting them kill each other. I don’t think Richard cared much for Mowbray, but we do see that he does not like Bolingbroke and feels threatened by him. It would make more sense to kill him and know that he is no longer a threat than to banish him for six years, where he can always come back as a threat. I was thinking that maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to be publicly stained by the fact that he had allowed his cousin’s blood to be spilled, but Gaunt makes it clear that that’s not something Richard would worry about. I agree that it will be interesting to see what happens to RIchard because of his hubris.
I too am very interested in knowing what will happen to Richard. I agree with you that he is almost Machiavellian in nature, and he really does adhere to the statement that the “end justifies the means.” However, it is not surprising that he exhibits such a nature, as many kings use deception to make their subjects believe one thing, yet the kings’ true intentions are radically different. This is a common tactic that was widely used by many kings, and while it has led to the downfall of many kings, it has also lead to a long and successful reign for many other kings.