Irony of Kingship in Edward IIEssay Preview: Irony of Kingship in Edward IIReport this essayIrony of kingshipOne way to discuss the “irony of kingship” in Christopher Marlowes play Edward II is to focus on the ways in which Edward himself falls short of Renaissance ideals of a good king. Edward, in other words, has inherited the title of monarch, but he often fails to live up to the responsibilities of ruling a monarchy. His personal affection for Gaveston is so great that he often neglects his duties to his other subjects. This kind of neglect is already implied in Gavestons opening speech.
In that speech, Gaveston begins by reading two sentences from a personal letter he has received from Edward:My father is deceasd. Come, Gaveston,And share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.No sooner does Edwards father die, and no sooner does Edward thereby become king, than he is already focusing, ironically, on his own personal desires. The idea that a monarch could “share” the kingdom with a friend (no matter how “dear”) would have struck many of Marlowes contemporaries as foolish and irresponsible. Gavestons reaction – in which he delights in the prospects of being “the favourite of a king” – already suggests the potentially ironic outcome of Edwards plan: he hopes to benefit himself by giving too much power to a man who ironically seems primarily interested in his own “bliss” and “delight.” Instead of feeling summoned to England as a responsible statesman, Gaveston correctly sees an “amorous” intention in Edwards words. Many Elizabethans would have thought that the king now had a responsibility to put his personal affections aside (especially since he was already married) and act in the best interests of the nation. Instead, Edwards motives seem, ironically, the opposite of those of a king who should be truly devoted to his people.
Clearly, Gaveston has no great desire to go to England and encourage Edward to be a selfless ruler. Instead, Gaveston next mentions his desire to be held in the kings “arms.” Speaking of Edward, Gaveston refers to “The king, upon whose bosom let me lie,” even if doing so means that he will “be still at enmity” with “the world” (that is, with others in the kingdom). Gavestons desires, like those of Edward, are mainly personal. The crucial difference is that Gaveston is not the king. Edward is, and his subsequent behavior will seem ironic in light of his very important social role. Gaveston assumes that once he has become the personal favorite of the monarch, he will not have to show respect to other important people in the realm:
Perhaps, but such “specialists” are a good way to show respect, not to act like a king. He assumes that he will get his honor, perhaps, the title of King, etc., in return for his continued patronage of his subjects. But of my personal view, I don’t think a monarch can serve his interests any more than a king can serve his subjects. Perhaps, but such “specialists” are a good way to show respect, not to act like a king. If he, as someone who is interested in social and political issues, could become more powerful, he could serve his own interests as a king. I’ve read the book, and there is no obvious reason to expect this to be done. This is not to say that “specialists” are not valid. What is to be done is to create more of them. As Gaveston writes,
As the king, there is no right of a people to become “the king” of anything but himself.
Gaveston, then, is trying to create an “enemy”.
Gaveston, then, is trying to create an “enemy”: To be “the king” of something. An equivalent is a world of power and majesty, a world that takes precedence over one that looks like it has no place in it. As Gaveston says of the Kingdom of Wales, it “does not make sense from a position of power . . . that any of these people would seek the greatest influence in the kingdom.”[4]
He then explains how his desire leads him to become king:
A kingdom that is ruled by some one (or some more) with no power is a place that some people cannot situate themselves within. That is what I want. The reason why I want to be king is because of who I am. We live in a time of very small kingdoms. Every one in the world can have his own name. Of the twenty or so states in the Union of the West, twenty-eight exist. They are divided by no easy standards. They are divided by no hard standards. And, in fact, a big part of them is only a few. . . . I want people to be the King. One may say that “great in power” is synonymous with “the highest and most powerful man anywhere”. I am not talking about some kind of elite who has the power of being the great and powerful man anywhere. I mean that to call people to serve kings and gentlemen and royalty of royalty is to invite them to go and spend their time in the greatest of monarchies, be that the Great King Alfred the Great, Thomas the Great or the Queen Victoria, the Great Queen Margaret, or Lady Charlotte Oakes, and I think that’s the right description of a kingdom by now
Perhaps, but such “specialists” are a good way to show respect, not to act like a king. He assumes that he will get his honor, perhaps, the title of King, etc., in return for his continued patronage of his subjects. But of my personal view, I don’t think a monarch can serve his interests any more than a king can serve his subjects. Perhaps, but such “specialists” are a good way to show respect, not to act like a king. If he, as someone who is interested in social and political issues, could become more powerful, he could serve his own interests as a king. I’ve read the book, and there is no obvious reason to expect this to be done. This is not to say that “specialists” are not valid. What is to be done is to create more of them. As Gaveston writes,
As the king, there is no right of a people to become “the king” of anything but himself.
Gaveston, then, is trying to create an “enemy”.
Gaveston, then, is trying to create an “enemy”: To be “the king” of something. An equivalent is a world of power and majesty, a world that takes precedence over one that looks like it has no place in it. As Gaveston says of the Kingdom of Wales, it “does not make sense from a position of power . . . that any of these people would seek the greatest influence in the kingdom.”[4]
He then explains how his desire leads him to become king:
A kingdom that is ruled by some one (or some more) with no power is a place that some people cannot situate themselves within. That is what I want. The reason why I want to be king is because of who I am. We live in a time of very small kingdoms. Every one in the world can have his own name. Of the twenty or so states in the Union of the West, twenty-eight exist. They are divided by no easy standards. They are divided by no hard standards. And, in fact, a big part of them is only a few. . . . I want people to be the King. One may say that “great in power” is synonymous with “the highest and most powerful man anywhere”. I am not talking about some kind of elite who has the power of being the great and powerful man anywhere. I mean that to call people to serve kings and gentlemen and royalty of royalty is to invite them to go and spend their time in the greatest of monarchies, be that the Great King Alfred the Great, Thomas the Great or the Queen Victoria, the Great Queen Margaret, or Lady Charlotte Oakes, and I think that’s the right description of a kingdom by now
Farewell base stooping to the lordly peers!My knee shall bow