Legitimacy and Strength in Leadership: A Ruler's Fitness for the Crown

(This essay discusses aspects of characters within the Shakespeare play The Life and Death of King John)

The topics of legitimacy and strength are important to the characters King John and Arthur with the context of Shakespeare's The Life and Death of King John.  Both of these attributes are challenging for these characters.  These characteristics are considered relative to stability and are very desirable within a monarch.  A monarch would need to be unwavering when it came to decision making and old enough to run a country without regency.  The topic of legitimacy would secure the popularity of the monarch with the common people, but it would be shaken if the prospect of war were to erupt.  King John, who was of questionable legitimacy to the throne, was old enough, but not necessarily wise enough to rule England.  John was appointed to the throne by his late brother Richard the Lionhearted.  "To this fair island and the territories, To Ireland, Poitiers, Anjou, Touraine, Maine, Desiring thee to lay aside the sword, Which sways usurping these several titles, And put the same into young Arthur's hand, Thy nephew and right royal sovereign."  (Shakespeare) Because Constance, King Philip of France, and others felt that John usurped the throne from Arthur, it caused a rift for his character within the play.  This kind of scandal cuts down his desirability within his own country and and within the French borders.  Even the French questioned the loyalty of their sovereigns during the conflicts.

Aspects with John that lessened his desirability were his greediness and his all consuming obsession with keeping the crown.  John's armies robbed the monasteries for profit and were willing to go to war with France just to keep his title.  John was ready to marry off his niece, Blanche,  to King Philip's son, Lewis, in order to settle any plans to pursuing Arthur as King of England, thus removing any threat.  Arthur, who was directed by King Philip and his controlling, guilt dealing mother Constance, didn't really have a voice of his own to begin with.  "Good my mother peace!  I would that I were low laid in my grave.  I am not worth this coil that is made for me." (Shakespeare)  Constance seemed to want the throne for Arthur and he really didn't exhibit any drive to be king.  Arthur, the son of the King's late elder brother, is portrayed as a fragile, delicate and naive child who wouldn't have the competence to rule at his tender age.  John also seemed to have a strong mother figure who influenced many of the important decisions that he made throughout the play.  Eleanor, his mother, was a guiding hand at many moments where he was mostly indecisive on his own.  That reduces that viability of a true monarch.  That two characters seemed to have no mind of their own in certain matters or were lead by their emotions rather than strength and intelligent leadership skills.

Arthur, because he is so sheltered by his mother, has no basis for true decision making as a ruler.  he was basically led around by King Philip and Constance, without any concrete example, as they bartered and threatened in order to champion his ascension as King of England.  "Now, citizens of Angiers, ope your gates, Let in that amity which you made, For at Saint Mary's chapel presently The rites of marriage shall be solemnized..." (Shakespeare)  Even Philip shows sings of indecision, which isn't a monarch's strong suit.  When Philip first shows signs of peace through the marriage of his son to John's niece, it seemed that Arthur's chances were dashed.  It seemed that all the threats of war and discord for Arthur's cause were thrown aside as if they weren't a priority anymore.  Both John and Philip were ready to disregard everything for the opportunity of moving into Angiers.  They were even willing to patronize Constance and Arthur with lesser titles.  But with the threat of religious turmoil at Pandulf's hand, Philip quickly turns his mind back to its original direction.  The fickle nature that Philip exhibits was a classic example of undesirability in a monarch, because his lack steadfast decision making.  John was so threatened by Arthur, that he put forth an order of execution to be done by Hubert, which pits his own nobleman against him.  John's weakness were his rash decisions and his inane fears of being deposed as sovereign of his country.

Eventually, after the failed execution of Arthur, John's misdeeds against the monasteries are the ones that kill him.  A monk from one of the monasteries poisons him fatally and he ends up dying.  Arthur, who was slated to die by execution, makes a fatal attempt to escape by jumping to his death over the castle wall.  Both nobles, regardless of their ages, made fatal mistakes that ultimately cost both of their lives.  "The wall is high, and yet I will leap down.  Good ground, be pitiful and hurt me not! ....As good to die and go, as die and stay." (Shakespeare)  Because of Arthur's immaturity and blind hopefulness, he ultimately makes the leap and ends his part in the play.  The frailty in his character and in John's lead to a series of factors would make both of them unfit to rule.  They didn't have the strength, the examples, or the organization to take control of a country.  Their actions put themselves at risk, and even put their countries in jeopardy.