|
|
It is easy to make a thesis statement about Shakespeares stupid kings and queens. Try a thesis statement that says something like "Shakespeare's kings prove that the United States is a good idea," or "Shakespeare's kings are dangerous to the common man," or "Shakespeare's kings don't do anything to improve the country."
Henry IV gets regular average people killed in his endevor to take over France. What is the justification for attacking France? Is it because of some civil rights violations? Is it some economic embargo or dumping or technology gap? No, Henry has some squabble with a distant relative. It comes down to Henry's basic greed. Henry does teach us a valuable lesson. Henry makes some good patriotic speeches. He then proceeds to get the common people killed in his greedy little war. So Henry teaches us to be wary, no to be afraid when a political leader makes patriotic speeches. Henry's antics in France do nothing to improve England. In fact his escapade drains England's resources. His taxes do pay for the war but do not help make improvements to England's ifrastructure. No roads are built; no hospitals are built; no schools are started. The men in the army are not farming their land; they are not building houses; they are not making any usable goods. Henry ruins England and France in his little greedy war. Once again Shakespeare shows us how stupid kings really are.
What can I say about Macbeth. This is one scary king. He becomes king by killing the king which in a royal world is actually not wrong. Unfortuneately, Macbeth does nothing to run the country or improve anything. He becomes obssessed with maintaining power, but he pays no attention to establishing his power. He goes around killing anyone that he thinks challenges his power. Now this might be a good Machiavellian exercise but it shows what a waste of time it really is. Macbeth's real problem is his superstitious foolishness, but his lust for power for the sake of power reveals the real weakness of kings. Kings want to be in charge but nobody wants to them to be in charge. There is no reason for Macbeth to be in charge. Yes Macbeth can kick some but, however I don't think that anyone wants Mike Tyson in charge of our country. The fact that Macbeth could become king shows that there is a problem with kings and how we get them. Luckily Shakespeare makes it seem as if Macbeth is king for a week or two at most. Macbeth really lasted 16 years. However to show this aspect of Macbeth would require a writer that can draw a compelete picture.
Besides Lears daughters we don't see too many queens in Shakespeare. Lady Macbeth is the exception. The real solution to Lady Macbeth. GET HER A J-O-B. Here is a woman that wants something out of life. She wants to do something that matters. She wants her husband to become a better person. She needs a job or a career. She is not a mother by any stretch of the imagination. Put her to work. If she was working on her career then she wouldn't need to worry about what the hubby's prospects. Maybe Macbeth should tell her to take care of the sick and the ill in the village around the castle. Whoops that would show concern for common folk which is not allowed in Shakespreare. Maybe she could get involved in the import export business and help to improve the Scottish economy. No that would make sense and help the common person which is not allowed in Shakespeare.
