Isaac butler’s article titled, “Did Richard II Provoke an Elizabeth Rebellion,” discusses the possibility of its’ use as propaganda as the ruling monarch at the time, Elizabeth wasn’t performing well and many of the people thought her illegitimate and wrong for the throne. The play Richard II depicted Richard with close similarities to Elizabeth such as their common over-priced/ failed wars in Ireland as well as their lack of legitimacy, and effeminate characteristics. There are questions of the correlation between Richard II and the Earl of Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth. It has been thoroughly researched and hypothesized that the Earl of Essex’s men watched Richard II the day before overthrowing Elizabeth as a sort of justification enhancement of their planned usurping. Solidifying the Earl of Essex’s reasons to fight, Richard II was the perfect antidotal play in explaining why Elizabeth’s power wasn’t legitimate and the Earl’s would be.
The play follows the downfall of Richard II as Henry IV rebelled through the years, building allies and creating legitimacy. The play seems to signify a political historical cycle in which the people of England were supposed to relate to their existing situation and do something about. As Henry IV was successful in his usurpation, the people of England would assumingely gain the same confidence the Earl and his men had by watching Richard II. They would believe what they were doing was right and with the knowledge that it is possible.
The historical cycles which Shakespeare alludes to raises tons of questions. Was Henry good or bad? Did Richard deserve to be usurped and if he did was Henry acquiring the crown in a legitimate way? In a similar fashion, Shakespeare’s political commentary can be applied throughout time as the political cycles continue. As the play ‘Richard II’ was considered pop culture, it was a way to relay a message to every common person. As common folk didn’t read or write, plays were the ultimate way of spreading propaganda. Communicating such feelings to the common people is crucial in order to assemble some kind of political movement.
Today, with Trump as our president, America is in an extremely two sided political world. Is his power legitimate? There are solid grounds for both yes and no but is either side right? Similarly to Richard II, the common folk are made aware of the ‘behind the scenes’ in the political world which very many long term processes and strategies have to be applied in order to obtain ultimate ‘legitimate’ power. Resemblances of current president Trump to such leaders as Hitler are scary, especially as we find that political history is cyclical. What is even scarier is the fact that once any leader, especially monarchs or presidents are very hard to impeach because of their tentacles of influence, whether legitimate or illegitimate. So how do we discuss legitimacy seems to be the question. In a world of media, there is not much left out of the public eye. So how far can certain groups go, holding convictions of legitimacy with so many examples of illegitimate acts. It seems that with political historical evidence that this might not matter as the current ruling leader usually has influence reaching to every political realm preventing any justified rebellion.
I think that you make very interesting observations connecting the role that media plays in determining how the public views their leader’s legitimacy. This is especially true in today’s world. Political scandal has been sensationalized by both the left and the right in the media. The left will jump on using the word “impeachment” at any chance that they get, and the right attacked Obama for wearing a tan suit to a press conference. This culture was also very prevalent when Richard II was first performed, with polarizing voices making themselves heard in the media.