Richard II Essay Questions

Who is the protagonist of the play? How do you know?

Unlike other history plays (specifically Henry V, a later play in the Henriad), Richard II contains no notable protagonist. At the beginning of the play, Richard is portrayed as an effective, weak, and self-absorbed king, but by the end he is a pitiable prisoner for whom the audience might have some sympathy. The play's lack of a distinct protagonist emphasizes the complex machinations of political history, in which people (largely men) vie for power through both laudatory and unsavory means.

What commentary does the play provide on gender roles in Medieval England?

Of course, gender role in Medieval and Early Modern England were vastly different from contemporary notions of gender. Though the play is mostly about men and their pursuits of power (like all history plays), the female characters are portrayed as decidedly loyal, constant, and decisive. While some characters vacillate in their loyalties, the women in the play stand steadfastly by their families and the concept of kinship, portraying women as relatively powerless but nonetheless forthright in their loyalties and commitments.

On what kind of note does the play end?

At the end of the play, an assassin murders Richard and it is left unclear whether the assassin was carrying out the wishes of Henry IV or not. This ambivalence is central to the play's conclusion, as it suggests that Henry IV's reign has begun on a suspicious note. As such, audiences are left questioning whether Richard's deposition was a beneficial choice for England or whether it was even a legitimate claim to power (this very debate will be rehashed in the next plays of the Henriad, Henry IV and Henry V).

What two primary perspectives of kingship are presented in the play? Why are these competing ideologies significant?

Through the figures of Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), the play presents two distinct understandings of kingship. First, Richard and his followers perceive kingship as that which is inherited and divinely anointed. In other words, kings become kings through their fathers and their claim to the throne is protected by God. By contrast, Bolingbroke's supporters understand kingship as that which is still inherited (bloodlines remain central to power) but which is also subject to the will and support of the people one governs. Thus, Bolingbroke sees his deposition of Richard as the correct move to make for the nation of England, as Richard's claim to the throne is defunct once his subjects no longer endow him with power to rule. These perspectives are especially significant given the historical context in which the play was written: at the time, the religious understanding of kingship had already started to give way to a more secular notion of power, which thrust debates of the subject/sovereign relationship to the forefront of political discourse.

In what ways is Richard an ineffective king?

Of course, despite his suffering at the end of the play, Richard is portrayed as an ineffective, weak, and self-serving king. First, he squanders the country's money on lavish performances and ceremonies, leading many to doubt his ability to govern successfully. Second, he perceives his power as absolute and inarguable, meaning that he expects loyalty from his subjects without extending any sense of loyalty to them in return (indeed, he is appalled to find, later in the play, that his subjects are not willing to defend his throne for him). Second, he squanders the country's money on lavish performances and ceremonies, leading many to doubt his ability to govern successfully. Finally, Richard's passivity, while pitiable in the latter half of the play, is portrayed as his supreme weakness as a ruler: he feels no need to defend himself (and by extension, England and its people) because he is so certain he can never be challenged.