By Simone Williams, Blogging Circle 3
Professor Mulready raised interesting questions in our last class in regards to the system of justice that is used when a King commits a crime. “What happens when a crime is committed by someone in chivalric order?” “Is there a system of justice that we can evolve that allows us to pass judgment on a king?”
These questions sparked my interest because leaders, kings especially, are greatly admired and placed on a pedestal by the common people. Especially in Shakespeare’s time, we read about how social class alters the way a person is treated tremendously. We saw examples of this in “Taming of the Shrew” when the characters would turn into completely different people when they are wearing clothes or speaking a language of a higher social class.
It is a great question to ask of how we as a people can judge and punish a person who was put in place to not only enforce the rules but to set an example of how they should be followed. This question caused me to research how our leader, the President, would be judged in a court of law if found guilty of committing a crime. Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If the president is found guilty of a crime, regardless of what it is, they are subject to be impeached before the end of their term. When we were discussing the different systems of justice that could be used on a King in class, we came up with: Divine rule, Revolution(Rebellion) or declare a new king.
All of those systems, besides declaring a new king are more extreme than the system we have in our constitution. Which system of rebellion do you think would most likely be used during Shakespeare’s time? Do you think William Shakespeare would have found Article 2, section 4 of our constitution “just” enough?
Realistically, I do believe that Shakespeare’s England could have benefited from the law we have in America about impeaching our leaders. It creates a clear-cut way of dealing with the President (or other members of the government) who disobey the laws in ways that are either dangerous or would inhibit them form running the country effectively. If in the time of Richard II this law was in place, I am unsure whether or not they would use it. Because they think that the King is a direct descendant of God or is appointed to the position of King by God, it is very unclear whether or not the King’s subjects would dare to accuse him of ruling incorrectly for fear of sinning against God. In this specific instance of Bolingbroke taking over Richard’s throne, it would have been useful because the royal court would have known what to do with Richard while he rants and raves about giving up his crown. In another situation in which the people are unhappy with the way the king rules the country or they suspect him of treason, I doubt that the court would hold every king accountable for all of their law breaking, unless they thought the same way that John of Gaunt did. He thought that King Richard is destroying and disgracing the country beyond repair and that a new king was necessary in order to maintain the country’s greatness. Other than a feeling as strong of Bolingbroke and John of Gaunt’s an impeachment of a king may not be the route many would take.
I’m wary that our modern day laws would be of any use in Shakespearean England. The context of those times falls predominantly back on religion, especially in regards to royalty. One may easily be deemed as “damned” should they question the king. This reminds me of when Richard tells Henry to “seize the crown” rather than “take” it. By taking the crown, to the audience of Shakespeare’s time, Henry and the others are damning themselves because the King is supposedly appointed by god. While they do end up taking away the crown from Richard, I venture to say the two different methods are not all that different. The beliefs surrounding them simply make one more accepted than the other. This is overall before Richard technically had the crown taken from him, just as one of our own presidents would have happen to them.
I think that even if in Richard’s time they had a law like Article 2, Section 4, whoever was bringing the current king’s crimes into light would probably need some elements of revolution or declaring a new king along with it. King Richard is unwilling to admit he did anything wrong and spends a lot of time comparing himself to sons of Sun gods, Adam in the garden, and refusing to read the list of offenses Bolingbroke’s supporters ask him to say aloud. Though such a law would have made it pretty clear that Richard was unfit to be king, Bolingbroke probably still wouldn’t have avoided that whole deposition scene.
I think that even if in Richard’s time they had a law like Article 2, Section 4, whoever was bringing the current king’s crimes into light would probably need some elements of revolution or declaring a new king along with it. King Richard is unwilling to admit he did anything wrong and spends a lot of time comparing himself to sons of Sun gods, Adam in the garden, and refusing to read the list of offenses Bolingbroke’s supporters ask him to say aloud. Though such a law would have made it pretty clear that Richard was unfit to be king, Bolingbroke probably still wouldn’t have avoided that whole deposition scene.
It truly is fascinating and admirable how perfectly Shakespeare conveys the confusion surrounding Richard’s deposition. Certainly, such an event was unprecedented, and the overall unsure vibe of Bolingbroke and his supporters is palpable while reading the deposition scene, and arguably even mores in the film representation we watched last class. Again, this brings us back to what seems to be a recurring question in our discussions of this work – what makes one deserving of power and another not so? Who is Bolingbroke to claim the throne? What legitimacy does he possess over Richard? Is he violating God by usurping the throne, or honoring God by replacing a corrupt ruler with a fairer one? Morality and legitimacy are at the forefront in this work.
I guess the most common or used method of overthrowing a King in Shakespeare’s time would be through rebellion/revolution, though I guess it’s roughly the same as declaring a new king really means. Because of what being King really means, being God’s chosen, his deputy, I feel like the only thing that could really challenge God in Shakespeare’s time, was also God. That would probably be the most straightforward way to avoid incurring his wrath, right? By staying with his chosen one, even if it’s a ‘different’ one. I’m also not sure if Shakespeare would have found it just enough. Maybe if he understood how our society functions, then yes, probably, but if meant for Shakespeare’s time, then probably not. Is there any way to really impeach a King, or by extension, God? I think the social status and classes are too rigid for section II to be applicable in Shakesperean times.