When to Usurp Your King
Kristen Todd
English Society believed that the king had a divine body as well as his physical one (read more on that here). The former was immortal and imbued with the power of God to rule a nation. The latter was an imperfect man chosen also by God to speak and act for this immortal, divine body. The existence of two bodies provides continuity for the nation: even when the Body natural died and was replaced, the stability of the king and the king’s justice remained. Kantorowicz explains that the “more prominent” of the two bodies “draws to itself the other one” and takes precedence (Kantorowicz 11). The body politic, being divine, supercedes the body natural. The body politic does not absorb the body natural; they coexist symbiotically. The body politic needs a physical incarnation to act; the body natural, in return, gains ultimate power. One could argue that this relationship is not symbiotic so much as parasitic. In parasitic cases, the body politic suffers abuse of power by serving the will of the body natural.
When subjects suspected abuse, they struggled to determine when it was prudent to usurp the Body natural to save the Body politic. Since usurping the true, divinely-appointed king warranted divine retribution, English subjects struggled to identify kings’ fitness to rule. We see this struggle recur throughout the Henriad, especially in the indecision and discomfort of Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II and his continued guilt in Henry IV, Parts I and II.
Because of the body politic, the “king’s acts are valid regardless of the personal worthiness of the body natural, its ‘nonage or old age,’ which imperfections ‘are wiped out by the Body politic” (Kantorowicz 18). If we use Richard II as a lens to understand this concept, we see that Shakespeare’s characters are exceedingly reluctant to act directly against the king. Though Richard has wrongfully “[seized] . . . / [Bolingbroke’s] plate, his goods, his money, and his lands,” Bolingbroke and his followers initially seek not the throne but retribution for the king’s crimes (II.iii.124-125; III.iii.33-42). They cannot discern what is God’s will through the Body politic and what is Richard’s volition as the Body natural. However, under the ideology of the King’s Two Bodies, the king is currently failing to meet his responsibility to rule his subjects justly. This failure creates a moral grey area.
As subjects, Bolingbroke and his circle feel the need to obey their king, yet they also recognize the injustice being done them. When the nobility’s sense of injustice outweighs their sense of civil obligation, they revolt. But the noble subjects’ inherent sense of wrong follows them through the play.
We also see this in the noble-turned-king, Henry IV. Bolingbroke’s fear of divine retribution and guilt as a subject follow him throughout the Henriad, and also plague his son, Henry V. Bolingbroke seeks means of making peace with God, as payment for deposing Richard. He wishes to lead a crusade “to the Holy Land / To wash [Richard’s] blood” from his “guilty hand” (Richard II V.vi.49-50). Henry V shares his father’s concern and has Richard reburied (IV.i.304-316). Their fears are not truly allayed until after Henry V wins the Battle of Agincourt, which proves God’s favor.
When subjects suspected abuse, they struggled to determine when it was prudent to usurp the Body natural to save the Body politic. Since usurping the true, divinely-appointed king warranted divine retribution, English subjects struggled to identify kings’ fitness to rule. We see this struggle recur throughout the Henriad, especially in the indecision and discomfort of Henry Bolingbroke in Richard II and his continued guilt in Henry IV, Parts I and II.
Because of the body politic, the “king’s acts are valid regardless of the personal worthiness of the body natural, its ‘nonage or old age,’ which imperfections ‘are wiped out by the Body politic” (Kantorowicz 18). If we use Richard II as a lens to understand this concept, we see that Shakespeare’s characters are exceedingly reluctant to act directly against the king. Though Richard has wrongfully “[seized] . . . / [Bolingbroke’s] plate, his goods, his money, and his lands,” Bolingbroke and his followers initially seek not the throne but retribution for the king’s crimes (II.iii.124-125; III.iii.33-42). They cannot discern what is God’s will through the Body politic and what is Richard’s volition as the Body natural. However, under the ideology of the King’s Two Bodies, the king is currently failing to meet his responsibility to rule his subjects justly. This failure creates a moral grey area.
As subjects, Bolingbroke and his circle feel the need to obey their king, yet they also recognize the injustice being done them. When the nobility’s sense of injustice outweighs their sense of civil obligation, they revolt. But the noble subjects’ inherent sense of wrong follows them through the play.
We also see this in the noble-turned-king, Henry IV. Bolingbroke’s fear of divine retribution and guilt as a subject follow him throughout the Henriad, and also plague his son, Henry V. Bolingbroke seeks means of making peace with God, as payment for deposing Richard. He wishes to lead a crusade “to the Holy Land / To wash [Richard’s] blood” from his “guilty hand” (Richard II V.vi.49-50). Henry V shares his father’s concern and has Richard reburied (IV.i.304-316). Their fears are not truly allayed until after Henry V wins the Battle of Agincourt, which proves God’s favor.