In Richard II, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV by William Shakespeare, the idea of ​​kingship undergoes a radical transformation produced by the rebellion of Bolingbroke. Before this rebellion, the king is considered sacred, inviolable and divinely ordained. Despite King Richard's grave misdeeds, many leading nobles continued to submit 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 dramatic and radical consequences. It legitimizes the act of rebellion as a reaction against the king's abuses, and transforms rebellion into the natural and inevitable consequence of monarchical tyranny. It destroys the divine image of kingship, introducing the idea that kings are made by men rather than God and thus removing the most powerful source of protection of the king's authority. He sets the dangerous precedent that any man could become king, provided he gets enough physical support. As a result, King Henry IV's reign is filled with new rebellions and civil unrest. In these plays, rebellion is depicted as the natural and understandable consequence of tyranny and abuses of power. This shows that a king cannot safeguard his kingdom from rebellion by relying solely on the concept of the divine right of the king; he must instead act in a just and responsible manner, earning the respect of his subjects. Rebellion is described as an extremely dangerous activity because it could destroy the order and stability of a kingdom and fill the kingdom with squabbles, massacres, and bloodshed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The act of open rebellion against the monarch is initially condemned by most of the characters in Richard II. Despite the fact that several people, such as John of Gaunt and the Duke of York, are outraged by Richard's imprudent policies and reckless behavior, they do not support the very act of open rebellion against him. This is because the concept of the divine right of kings is the dominant political ideology of this era. The divine right of king preaches the philosophy that the king's authority derives exclusively from God. The king's power is therefore divinely sanctioned. No matter how grave his earthly offenses, no earthly mortal could stage a rebellion against his divine authority. This ideology is held even by the people who have the harshest complaints against Richard, indicating that it is a widely accepted ideology firmly rooted in people's consciousness. John of Gaunt is someone who is obviously outraged at Richard's obvious abuses of his kingly power. . He accuses Richard of having tarnished England's glorious reputation with his disastrous policies. Gaunt is acutely aware that Richard is directly complicit in the murder of his brother Gloucester. He is also painfully aware that Richard is “renting” (Shakespeare, 998) the sacred sovereignty of England through his questionable economic policies. Although Gaunt is not afraid to openly condemn Richard's misconduct, he refuses to stage an open rebellion against him; although Gaunt believes that kings must act responsibly, he still believes in the divine right of kings. She tells the Duchess of Gloucester that she cannot avenge her husband's death through rebellion because she believes Richard is Richard's "substitute"God (989), his “minister” (989) and his “anointed deputy” (989). By this he means that the king is God's representative 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 transgressions. Likewise, the Duke of York is also keenly aware of Richard's misdeed, yet he disapproves of the act of rebellion and accuses Bolingbroke of being a traitor who disturbs the civil peace with his “despised weapons” (1009) against the rightful “ anointed king” (1009). York even raises a small army to defend Richard's kingship from Bolingbroke's rebel armies, and it only unwittingly surrenders to the rebel armies under their duress. Although both York and Gaunt are aware that Richard is unfit to rule, neither questions his legitimacy to rule. Their belief in Richard's legitimacy as king forces them to put aside their many grievances and remain Richard's obedient subjects. By highlighting the doctrine of the divine right of kings, Richard II shows that total rebellion is not an easy thing, because the rebels are challenging a legitimate ruler who is generally considered to be appointed by God. Furthermore, Richard II's act of rebellion itself seeks to to overturn the long-established ideology of the divine right of the king and replace it with a new idea that states that a king must be accountable to his subjects by behaving responsibly. manner. Thus, the rebellion in Richard II involves a revolutionary ideological shift that seeks to undermine the very foundations of divine kingship. The turbulent reign of Henry IV indicates that such a drastic ideological change introduced by the rebellion cannot occur without causing further chaos and upheaval. Although the divine right of the king is generally accepted in this work, Richard II shows that kings cannot entirely safeguard their kingdom 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 reign against possible acts of rebellion, but Richard II indicates that reliance on this principle alone is an ineffective way to ward off civil disobedience. King Richard is a blind pursuer of the divine right of kings as he believes his "divinely sanctioned" authority possesses magical power capable of protecting his crown from any attempt at rebellion. He naively believes that "not all the water of the troubled and troubled sea can wash the balm from an anointed king, [and that] the breath of worldly men cannot depose the Lord's chosen deputy" (1013). Even when he learns of his troops' desertion, 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 to non-existent divine protection become increasingly ridiculous and pathetic as 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 any mystical heavenly force. 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 virtue; Bolingbroke's Rebellion indicates that the doctrines of the divine right of kings and monarchical absolutism have become increasingly unworkable and in need of modification to accommodatea changing world. In Richard II, the king himself is the true instigator of the rebellion. The reason the rebellion occurs is because Richard fails to realize that to safeguard his kingdom from possible revolts, he must not only be a legitimate king, but he must also be a just king. This play shows that when a king loses all forms of popular support due to his persistent misconduct, 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 also possesses an earthly body, meaning he may be prone to earthly imperfections and flaws that prevent him from living up to his divine image. King Richard illustrates this point perfectly. Although he outwardly assumes the title of a divinely anointed king, his private self is characterized by worldly greed, corruption, and moral irresponsibility. In Richard II, King Richard himself is entirely the source of the rebellion. Although this play focuses on Bolingbroke's rebellion, the play actually highlights the king's misdeeds rather than Bolingbroke's rebellion. Bolingbroke is not portrayed as the ruthless, unscrupulous traitor determined to rebel against the king's authority. His rebellion is described as a sad necessity instigated by the king's grave injustice towards him. In Richard's deposition scene, Bolingbroke remains mostly silent, which betrays his guilty conscience and moral distress. He is only a reluctant traitor who is pushed onto the path of rebellion by the king's mistreatment of him. Therefore, the king is the cause and origin of Bolingbroke's rebellion. Although Richard is deposed because of the rebellion, he is brought down more by self-destruction than rebellion. Richard himself confirms his self-destruction by saying that he finds himself "[himself] a traitor to others, for [he] has unmask[ed] the pompous body of a king" (1029) due to his bad conduct. Because Richard has destroyed himself through his blatant misuse, he has literally undone himself in the deposition scene as he "wash[ed] away [his] balm" (1028) with his "own tears" (1028) and "has given away [his] crown” (1028) with “his own hands” (1028), the rebellion is described as a reaction to Richard's behavior rather than an act of Bolingbroke's ambition it is the result of Richard's greed rather than Bolingbroke's ambition. Bolingbroke's rebellion highlights the flaws and limitations of a political system that preaches the doctrines of monarchical absolutism. Because the king is perceived as divine, he cannot be held responsible to the people. In that case, the only way to punish his misdeed is through open rebellion. Bolingbroke's rebellion produces several short-term and long-term effects. In the short term, it destroys civil peace in England. The rebellion destroys the quiet harmony within England and produces hostile factions between Bolingbroke and Richard's supporters. Immediately after Bolingbroke took the throne, this factionalism within England nearly exploded into bloody violence when a group of Richard's supporters tries 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 correctly prophesies, this act of rebellion will destroy peace and stability in England, unleash “disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny” (1027), and cause “kin to be confused with kin, and kind for kind” (1027). Civil peace “shall go to bed with the Turks and infidels” (1027), and that future generations “will groan at this ignoble act”(1027) and “they will cry out against your misfortune” (1027). In 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV, King Henry IV is in real trouble. His reign is characterized by a series of internal rebellions and civil unrest. The noble house of Northumberland, his cousin Mortimer, the Welsh noble Glyndwr, and the Archbishop of York all rose against him. In the long term, this rebellion produces a radical ideological change regarding kingship. It completely destroys the king's association with divine forces. It 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, Bolingbroke's rebellion destroys a king's greatest source of protection. This is the most important long-term effect of his rebellion. Once he shatters the divine image of the king through rebellion, all the reda may now be subject to revolt and deposition. The moment Bolingbroke ascends the throne, he immediately finds himself in a very untenable and dangerous position, because the ancient doctrine that safeguards kings from revolts has been destroyed. This is confirmed by the opening lines of 1 Henry IV, which describes the newly crowned king as immediately besieged by new civil unrest. Henry IV no longer enjoys King Richard's easygoing ease; instead he finds himself “shaken” (1188) and “pale with care” (1188) by a new “civil butcher's shop” (1189). Bolingbroke's Rebellion opened the door to riots. In the time of Henry IV, kings are 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 for granted the obedience of his subjects in the manner of King Richard. Instead, he must use every trick and strategy to win people's respect and affection by “wresting loyalty 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, Bolingbroke's Rebellion completely reshapes the customs and style of kingship. Since the divine image of kings is destroyed, a king must henceforth act more like an earthly politician than a divine minister of God. Unlike the irresponsible Richard who does not care about his public image, Bolingbroke appeals to everything his tact and skills to construct and execute an attractive public image to make his person "fresh and new" (1228) and "wonderful" (1228). Since his rebellion destroyed the inviolability of kingship, Bolingbroke always needs to pamper public opinion, because 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. Because he is a usurper king who achieved power through “indirect backroads and crooked ways (1392), he suffers the consequences of his tainted image and compromised reputation throughout his reign, which greatly weakens his power. His nobles, such as Worcester and Hotspur, speak to him with little reverence and often hold him in great contempt. No one worships him like the sacred anointed king. Hotspur simply calls him Bolingbroke, signifying his reluctance to recognize Henry as king. As king, Bolingbroke has great difficulty finding consistent and loyal supporters. Since his kingship rests on very shaky foundations, many people are willing to grant him unconditional support. Once Bolingbroke deposes a king, all kings may be subject to deposition. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example of civil disobedience for people and tempts others to do so, 2008.