King Lear's Failure of Monarchy as Illustrated in William Shakespeare's Play

A Failed Attempt at Governing

An Analysis On Why Monarchy Is An Inadequate Form Of Governing As Seen In King Lear

Throughout history, civilizations have debated over ways to govern people. Monarchy, democracy, communism, socialism, fascism, and dictatorships have been attempted by rulers. Through trial and error, most people in society have slowly learned that democracy has been one of the most effective ways to keep the majority of the people content. Written in 1609 by William Shakespeare, King Lear teaches us that monarchy is one of the most ineffective methods of ruling. The play shows us that because monarchy centralizes the majority of the power within one individual, competition within families will erupt, and individuals will turn on their own blood in order to attain more power.

In the first scene of the play, King Lear is not only directing a conversation, but is also blatantly telling others what he wants to hear. Lear asks “which of you [his daughters] shall we say doth love us most? That we our largest bounty may extend” (1.1 50-51). His daughters, Goneril and Regan comply due to their hunger for power. They are both aware that if they please their father now, they will eventually gain the power they so much desire. Throughout the text, we see that the moment these two daughters gain power, they turn instantly cruel. They will both commit horrible crimes against their father, Cordelia, and themselves. According to Robert Matz from George Mason University, torture and political authority go hand in hand. With the power centralized in one person, it is inevitable that they will both inflict and experience pain. They will experience it both when they have power and when they lose it. Lear is a prime example of this. When he holds power, he experiences pain when Cordelia refuses to play his games. When Lear tells Cordelia to be “more opulent than [her] sisters” (1.1 86), Cordelia responds that she “cannot heave [her] heart into [her] mouth” (1.1 91-92). King Lear does not experience any physical pain by this, but rather an emotional kind of torture. Here, he has his favorite daughter who he believes loves him the most, refusing to be manipulated by him. One might fail to see how this is torturous. However, when paired with how Lear is used to being treated, we begin to understand how unprecedented Cordelia’s answer was, and how painful or disturbing, it was for King Lear to hear it. When he loses his power, King Lear is hurt once again by his own flesh and blood. The daughters he mistakenly came to believe loved him the most, Goneril and Regan, betray him. Lear has lost his power, and suffers because of it. He begs his daughters to “not make [him] mad, [he] will not trouble” them (2.4 216-217). He degrades himself and begs his daughter to take him in. All these problems and hurt are rooted in a centralization of power. Through King Lear we understand that monarchy which calls for a centralization of power is very ineffective both for the person in power, and for those who lose it. Goneril and Regan both turn cold and hard, and do no good for the subjects they govern over.

When a nation is ruled by monarchy, the people pledge allegiance to both a king and a country. When a king is thrown out with a coup d’état, the citizens are left confused as to whom to pledge their allegiance to. Some sympathize with the former king who was overthrown. However, others pledge their allegiance to the new self-proclaimed king. By doing so, they are not only pledging their allegiance to a new king, but also keep their allegiance to their nation. Kent represents this ambiguity between the subjects when such a usurpation of power occurs in a monarchy. He has “loved [Lear] as [his] father, as [his] master followed” (1.1 142). Although Lear isn’t overthrown, his power is still redistributed to his daughters. Lear is no longer the source of ultimate authority, and Kent has to decide who to pledge his loyalty to. He can either give it to Goneril and Regan, or pledge it to Lear, the original king of Britain. In his article. "National Messianism And English Chorography In King Lear", Jaecheol Kim compares the current political state of Britain during King James’ rule to that of Lear and the political state in his play. He states that during King James’ rule, the “political claim of the Scottish monarch was in conflict with his English subjects’ allegiance to English nationhood thus creating an ambiguous allegiance between the two” (Kim 685). Just like Kent, the English people have to make a hard decision. They have to decide whether to pledge it to their nation and King James, or to the Scottish who had taken a sort of control over England, making them the official rulers. This predicament demonstrates how monarchy has created a rift between the subjects. Do they pledge allegiance to their nation? Or to the king as the law dictates?

Monarchy is an inadequate system of government because it creates ties between history, power, family and tradition. Power is passed on from generation to generation, and the subjects become confused as to whether they are loyal to their king or their country. In a democracy, citizens are loyal to their nation. Because the figures of authority such as the President and Senators are temporary, citizens do not pledge their loyalty to them. They pledge it to an idea, and whoever can fulfill that idea, holds a temporary position of power. In a government ruled by a monarchy, this system of a balanced power does not occur.