Richard II was a harder play for me to understand. The speech was difficult especially because I am not used to reading Shakespearian plays. Some scenes in the play that really stuck out to me was when Richard II banished both Mowbray and Bolingbroke so abruptly. I did not understand why he made this decision.

What I found ironic was how Richard II plotted against Gloucester and then how many people including Bolingbroke plot against Richard II. This could also be regarded as foreshadowing because what happens to Gloucester seems to happens to Richard II. Again, as with Don Juan, I am not sure whether to classify Richard II as a hero or as a villain. They both have attributable qualities; however, their main roles in the plays are not reputable. This quality of their character makes their role classification hazy and it is up to the reader to determine whether the main character is a hero or a villain.

Richard II first shows his power as King, when he banishes both Mowbray and Bolingbroke. His actions were not even of his own will, but from advice and a “party verdict.” How powerful is the King if he can be persuaded into banishing his own cousin from his country for six years? Not only does Richard II banish his cousin, he does so to avoid solving the actual conflict at hand between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. If this wasn’t cowardly enough, we later find out that Bolingbroke’s father, and Richard’s uncle is dieing, and after berating Richard II with his last words, Richard II decides to seize all his property (the rightful inheritance of Bolingbroke) and sell the property to fund his wars in Ireland.

Gaunt and Edward, Richard’s father, were claimed to have proved themselves as men of their country from their efforts in wars, while Richard II is said to have seen more peace, indicating his inexperience with war, as well as questioning his qualifications as King. It seems ironic that at the end of Act II King Richard is thought to have died in his wars in Ireland, just as Bolingbroke returns to reclaim what is rightfully his. There seems to be a power shift toward Bolingbroke, where he is feared by some of the characters more than they fear the King.

Richard II is, of course, one of Shakespeare’s historical plays. However, it has much of the same themes that are illustrated in one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies, Macbeth.

Both Richard II and Macbeth contain the character of a power-hungry king. King Richard seems similar to King Macbeth in that both do anything to assert their authority (even murder) yet are essentially weak. Richard uses the theory of divine right to justify his actions, much like Macbeth tries to use the witches’ prophecy to justify his actions. Both characters also rashly invade other lands and do things without thinking them through. Richard also banishes his enemies and spends extravangantly, just like Macbeth.

John of Gaunt reminded me of Banquo. He is Richard’s friend and uncle, and tries to to correct Richard when he commits a rash act, but Richard doesn’t listen and inadvertently causes Gaunt’s death. Like Banquo in Macbeth, it seems as though Gaunt (and his son, Bolingbroke, who was banished by Richard in the beginning of the play) will indirectly get his revenge later on in the play.

Also like Macbeth, Richard has his dissenters, those who plan to rebel against him. Bolingbroke, along with the the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Ross, and Lord Willoughby, plan to stage a royal coup in England as soon as Richard leaves to invade Ireland. This mirrors the invasion of MacDuff and his army in Macbeth. At the end of Act II, Richard is cornered by the Welsh army. It seems that nothing but ominous things are in store for Richard…

As much as I have enjoyed reading and performing Shakespeare’s plays in the past, I have to say that this is the most confusing play I have read so far.  There are many characters to keep track of, and a most of them are related to each other.  It’s hard to remember whose son is whose cousin and whose uncle and so forth.  In addition to having to keep up with the many characters mentioned in the play, some of the scenes don’t make sense.

Act I, scene iii made no sense to me because, after taking so much time to formally set up the duel, King Richard II stops it before either combatant can make a single move.  “Sound, trumpets; and set forward, combatants. / A charge sounded / Stay, the king hath thrown his warder down.”  The king then announces his decision to banish both Mowbray and Bolingbroke.  If he was going to banish them both in the first place, why didn’t he do so earlier?  Why didn’t he let the duel go on so he could at least pretend to make a conclusion from the duel?  The king later decides to reduce Bolingbroke’s banishment period by four years so that he is now banished for six years instead.  He says it’s because exiling Bolingbroke saddens his uncle, but this shorter sentence means nothing if his uncle will die before Bolingbroke returns.

In Act I, scene iii, the king reveals that he doesn’t expect Bolingbroke to return even after his time in exile expires.  “He is our cousin, cousin; but ’tis doubt, / When time shall call him home from banishment, / Whether our kinsman come to see his friends.”  He then goes on to explain how Bolingbroke is a threat to the king because all the commoners love him and he acts as if he’s next in line to be king.  If this is true, why not banish Bolingbroke for eternity.  Mowbray was banished for eternity.  Why not have let the duel go on so that perhaps Bolingbroke would be slain?  That would have been one way to prevent Bolingbroke from staging his coup.

After reading Richard II, I forgot about how hard it was for me to understand Shakespeare sometimes. Thus far, I find the story pretty interesting. It seems bizarre that these two lords can fight over something so intangible as honor is something that I don’t think we see today in the world. While that’s not to say honor is dead, but rather, people tend to identify with a personal insult as grounds to fight and possibly kill someone you know.

Additionally, I think it is an important point in King Richard’s character that he stopped the dual from occurring. Instead of allowing petty squabbles to tear apart his kingdom, instead he fought to ensure the prosperity of his rule. However, this prosperity soon comes to be challenged by the dying Gaunt. I also find it interesting that Gaunt can so blatantly disrespect the king with no subsequent outburst. This may be a result of his coming death. However, Richard does not seem to assert his importance over Gaunt, nor over York when he is challenged later in that very same scene. I think this may be an important thing to keep an eye on throughout the development of the play.