The Conscience of a King

The conscience of a king... why is this important and who is best to explain it? The second question is easy enough to answer: Shakespeare does exceptionally well in exposing the conscientiousness of the three kings and the effects of their rule in Richard II, Henry IV parts one and two, and Henry V. In them he shows the correlation of a society whose inhabitants believed a monarch ruled by divine right; that the society flourished or waned depending on the king. In effect, the prosperity or decay of a country was the direct reflection of the moral health or sickness of the king. No one illustrates this better than Shakespeare in his aforementioned historical plays. Take, for example, King Richard.

King Richard's court is characterized by luxury and refinement. He surrounds himself with greedy counselors and is willing to take what is not rightfully his. Moreover, to hide his part in an assassination, he wrongfully banishes a young noble denying him from being present at his father's death. Is it no wonder that Richard's rule is full of civil strife and considered weak?

However, it would be wrong to categorize Richard in such a one-sided and simplistic way. He is truly a tragic figure. Although divinely chosen and all-powerful, he is merely mortal and subject to his own vices. And herein lies the personal tragedy of Richard II: he recognizes this. While he keeps reminding those around him of his God-given mandate to rule, once certain to lose power he seems to relish the relinquishment of weariness and tediousness that comes with it. As is later shown, there are consequences for removing a rightfully ordained king (Richard, himself, predicts this). Bolingbroke, later crowned Henry IV, fully realized the inherent wrongness of it and it weighs heavily on his conscience. Shakespeare demonstrates this in Henry IV with a monarchy, unable to fully atone for its sin, plagued by insecurities caused by insurrections and the uncertainty in the rule of an unregenerate son.

In all fairness, Henry IV was somewhat reluctant to take the crown. His initial incentive in opposing Richard was to redress wrongs done to him and his family. He was endeared by the masses, and seeing a need for change, accepted the responsibility. Still, unease characterizes his state of mind (as well as his state) and he pledges to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to atone for this monumental wrong.

If the reader pauses to consider what is happening in Act I, Scene II of Henry IV, part II, he will see that true to Shakespearean doctrine, Henry is already enduring divine punishment through civil strife and has been since the beginning of his rule. His vow to meet the infidel in the Holy Land must be put off again by a new threat close to him. Interestingly, we must now have to consider that Henry is king through divine intervention. However, in becoming king he must pay for his usurpation and regicide. Accordingly, we can assume his rule will never truly be a peaceful one regardless of his intentions of repentance.

Whatever sins his father committed by obtaining the crown, Henry V is a rightful heir to the throne. Perhaps Henry IV says it best when, while he lay dying, he explains to his son that he gained the crown by "by-paths and indirect crook'd ways" (2 Henry IV, IV, 5, 184). Further, considering how troublesome it sat on his