In William Shakespeare's Richard II, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV, the idea of ​​kingship undergoes a radical transformation produced by the Bolingbroke Rebellion. Before this rebellion, the king was considered sacred, inviolable and divinely ordained. Despite the grave misdeeds committed by King Richard, many leading nobles continued to defer to this divine image of kingship and condemn the idea of ​​rebellion. However, Richard's blatant abuses of his royal authority caused several nobles to abandon this divine image of kingship and embrace open rebellion. This act of rebellion produces several dramatic and radical consequences. It legitimizes the act of rebellion in reaction to the king's abuses and makes rebellion the natural and inevitable consequence of monarchical tyranny. It destroys the divine image of kingship, introducing the idea that kings are created by men rather than by God and thus removing the most powerful source of protection from the king's authority. This sets a dangerous precedent that any man can become king, provided he gets enough physical support. As a result, King Henry IV's reign was filled with further rebellions and civil unrest. In these plays, rebellion is depicted as the natural and understandable consequence of tyranny and abuse of power. This shows that a king cannot protect his rule against rebellion by relying solely on the concept of the divine right of the king; rather, he must act justly and responsibly by earning the respect of his subjects. Rebellion is described as an extremely dangerous activity as it could destroy the order and stability of a kingdom and fill the kingdom with strife, massacres and bloodshed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayThe act of open rebellion against the monarch is initially condemned by most of the characters in Richard II. Despite the fact that many people, such as John of Gaunt and the Duke of York, were outraged by Richard's reckless policies and reckless behavior, they did not support the very act of open rebellion against him. Indeed, the concept of the divine right of kings is the dominant political ideology of this era. The Divine Right of the King preaches the philosophy that the authority of the king is derived solely from God. The power of the king is therefore divinely sanctioned. No matter how grave his earthly offenses may be, no earthly mortal could mount a rebellion against his divine authority. This ideology is endorsed by even people who have the most bitter grievances against Richard, indicating that it is a widely accepted ideology that is firmly ingrained in people's consciousness. John of Gaunt is someone who is clearly outraged by Richard's blatant abuse of his royal power. . He accuses Richard of having tarnished the glorious reputation of England with his disastrous policies. Gaunt is fully aware that Richard is directly complicit in the murder of his brother Gloucester. He is also painfully aware that Richard is "praising" (Shakespeare, 998) England's sacred sovereignty through his questionable economic policies. Although Gaunt is not afraid to openly condemn Richard's misbehavior, he refuses to organize an open rebellion against him; Even though Gaunt believes that kings must act responsibly, he still believes in the divine right of kings. He tells the Duchess of Gloucester that he cannot avenge her husband's death through rebellion because he believes that Richard is God's "substitute" (989), his "minister» (989) and his “anointed deputy” (989). By this he means that the king is the representative of God on earth. Therefore, no earthly mortal could disobey Richard's authority and punish his crimes, and only God has the responsibility and power to punish the king's offenses. Likewise, the Duke of York is also deeply aware of Richard's misdeed, he nevertheless disapproves of the act of rebellion and accuses Bolingbroke of being a traitor who disturbs civil peace with his "despised weapons" (1009) against the "king anointed” legitimate (1009). York even raised a small army to defend Richard's kingship against Bolingbroke's rebel armies, and he only reluctantly submitted to the rebel armies under their duress. Although both York and Gaunt are aware that Richard is unfit to rule, neither of them. calls into question its legitimacy to govern. Their faith in Richard's legitimacy as king forces them to swallow their many grievances and remain Richard's obedient subjects. By emphasizing the doctrine of the divine right of kings, Richard II shows that outright rebellion is not an easy affair, as rebels challenge a legitimate ruler who is generally considered divinely appointed. Furthermore, Richard II's very act of rebellion seeks to overturn the long-established ideology of the divine right of the king and replace it with a new idea that a king must be responsible to his subjects by behaving responsibly. responsible manner. manner. Therefore, the rebellion under Richard II involves a revolutionary ideological change that seeks to undermine the very foundations of divine kingship. The turbulent reign of Henry IV indicates that such radical ideological change ushered in by rebellion cannot occur without causing further chaos and upheaval. Although the divine right of the king is generally accepted in this play, Richard II shows that kings cannot safeguard their rule entirely on this principle. This play shows that even in a society that accepts the divine right of kings, rebellion can become the natural and inevitable consequence when its monarch abuses his absolutist power. The divine right of kings can be used to legitimize and strengthen a monarch's rule against possible acts of rebellion, but Richard II indicates that relying solely on this principle is an ineffective means of warding off civil disobedience. King Richard blindly pursues the divine right of kings believing that his "divinely sanctioned" authority possesses magical power that can protect his crown against any attempt at rebellion. He naively believes that “all the water of the troubled sea cannot wash away the balm of an anointed king, [and that] the breath of the men of the world cannot overthrow the deputy elected by the Lord” (1013). Even when he learns of the desertion of his troops, he continues to believe that his divinely ordained name is worth "forty thousand names" (1014), and that he can easily defeat Bolingbroke's rebellion through the divine power of his name. Richard's repeated appeals for non-existent divine protection become increasingly ridiculous and pathetic when it becomes clear that he has lost all physical support in his kingdom. This play shows that it is earthly physical support that truly protects a king from rebellion, rather than heavenly mystical forces. As King Richard's medieval society is about to be replaced by the coming Renaissance world, which replaces the divine absolutism of kings with worldly pragmatism and political virtues; The Bolingbroke Rebellion indicates that doctrines of the divine right of kings and monarchical absolutism have become increasingly impractical and must be modified to adapt to a changing world. In Richard II, the kinghe himself is the real instigator of the rebellion. The reason the rebellion occurs is because Richard does not realize that in order to protect his rule from possible revolts, he must not only be a legitimate king, but also a just king. This play shows that when a king loses any form of popular support due to his persistent misbehavior, rebellion becomes the natural result, even in a society that values ​​the divine right of kings. Although a king possesses the divine political title, he possesses an earthly body, which means that he may be subject to earthly imperfections and failures that prevent him from living up to his divine image. King Richard illustrates this point perfectly. Although he outwardly assumes the title of divinely anointed king, his private life is characterized by earthly greed, corruption, and moral irresponsibility. In Richard II, King Richard himself is entirely behind the rebellion. Although this play focuses on the Bolingbroke Rebellion, it actually highlights the king's misdeeds rather than the Bolingbroke Rebellion. Bolingbroke is not portrayed as an unscrupulous and ruthless traitor, determined to rebel against the king's authority. His rebellion is depicted as a dark necessity brought on by the king's blatant injustice towards him. In Richard's deposition scene, Bolingbroke remains mostly silent, betraying his guilty conscience and moral unease. He is just a reluctant traitor who is propelled onto the path of rebellion by the king's mistreatment of him. The king is therefore the cause and origin of the Bolingbroke rebellion. Although Richard is deposed by the rebellion, he is brought down more by self-destruction than by rebellion. Richard himself confirms his self-destruction by saying that he considers himself "a traitor with others, for [he has] undone the pompous body of a king" (1029) because of his bad behavior. Because Richard destroyed himself through his blatant abuse, he literally undid himself in his deposition scene by "washing [his] balm" (1028) with his "own tears" (1028) and “giving [his] crown” (1028) with his “own hands” (1028). In Richard II, the rebellion is depicted as a reaction to Richard's behavior rather than an act of ambition by Bolingbroke. This act of rebellion is the result of Richard's greed rather than Bolingbroke's ambition. The Bolingbroke Rebellion shows the faults and limitations of a political system which preaches the doctrines of monarchical absolutism. Since the king is seen as divine, he cannot be held accountable to the people. In such a case, the only way to punish one's wrongdoing is to openly rebel. The Bolingbroke Rebellion produced several short- and long-term effects. In the short term, this destroys civil peace in England. The rebellion destroyed the quiet harmony within England and produced hostile factions between Bolingbroke and Richard's supporters. Immediately after Bolingbroke ascended the throne, this factionalism within England nearly erupted into bloody violence as a group of Richard's supporters sought to assassinate the new king. This violent plan is a foretaste of a series of violent conflicts that will unfold in 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV. As Carlishe rightly prophesies, this act of rebellion will destroy the peace and stability of England, trigger "disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny" (1027), and create "confusion between kinsmen and fellows" ( 1027). Civil peace will “go to sleep with the Turks and the infidels” (1027), and future generations “will groan for this vile act” (1027) and “will cry against your misfortune” (1027). In 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV, King Henry IV istruly besieged. His reign was characterized by a series of domestic rebellions and civil unrest. The noble house of Northumberland, his cousin Mortimer, the Welsh nobleman Glyndwr and the Archbishop of York all rose up against him. In the long term, this rebellion produced a radical ideological change in matters of kingship. This completely destroys the king's association with divine forces. This shows that as long as one has sufficient physical support, virtually anyone can become king, with or without the unnecessary seal of divine approval. By destroying the divine right of the king, the Bolingbroke Rebellion destroys a king's greatest source of protection. This is the most important long-term effect of his rebellion. Once he breaks the king's divine image through rebellion, all kings from that point on can be subject to revolt and deposition. As soon as Bolingbroke ascended the throne, he immediately found himself placed in a very untenable and perilous position, for the old doctrine which protected kings from revolts had been destroyed. The opening lines of 1 Henry IV confirm this, which show the newly crowned king immediately besieged by further civil unrest. Henry IV no longer has the assured nonchalance of King Richard; instead, he found himself “shaken” (1188) and “pale with worry” (1188) by a new “civil butchery” (1189). The Bolingbroke Rebellion opened the floodgates of revolts. At the time of Henry IV, kings were no longer considered sacred and inviolable. Henry IV is no longer protected by the magical aura of the royal divinity. He can no longer afford the luxury of taking the obedience of his subjects for granted, like King Richard. Instead, he must use every trick and strategy to gain people's respect and affection by "ripping allegiance from their hearts" (1228). In the short term, the rebellion shatters civil peace and ushers in a series of new rebellions. In the long term, the Bolingbroke Rebellion completely reshaped the morals and style of royalty. Since the divine image of kings is destroyed, a king must now act more like an earthly politician rather than a divine minister of God. Unlike the irresponsible Richard who does not care about his public image, Bolingbroke uses all his tact and skill to construct and achieve an attractive public image in order to make his persona "fresh and new" (1228) and " amazed” (1228). Since his rebellion destroyed the sanctity of kingship, Bolingbroke still needs to pamper public opinion, for a king not protected by a divine image will easily lose the crown when he falls out of favor with his subjects. Throughout 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV, the newly crowned Bolingbroke must deal with the long-term effects of his rebellion. Being a usurping king who came to power through “devious and circuitous paths (1392), he suffered the consequences of his tarnished image and compromised reputation throughout his reign, which greatly weakened his power. His nobles, such as Worcester and Hotspur, speak to him with little respect and often hold him with great disdain. No one worships him as a sacred and anointed king. Hotspur simply calls him Bolingbroke, signifying his refusal to recognize Henry as king. As king, Bolingbroke had great difficulty finding consistent and loyal supporters. His kingship being built on very fragile foundations, many people are ready to promise him unconditional support. Once Bolingbroke has deposed a king, all kings can be subject to deposition. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example of civil disobedience to the people and incites others to commit the same act of disobedience. During the time of the king., 2008.