We are amazed; and thus long have we stood
To watch the fearful bending of thy knee,
Because we thought ourself thy loyal king.
An if we be, how dare thy joints forget
To pay their aweful duty to our presence?
If we be not, show us the hand of God
That hath dismissed us from our stewardship.
For well we know no hand of blood and bone
Can grip the sacred handle of our sceptre,
Unless he do profane, steal or usurp. (3.3. 71-83)
Nosism, also known in colloquial usage as the royal we or majestic plural, is often spoken by a monarch or those who occupy a higher office. Though the royal we, for the most part, has been dropped from our modern speech, Shakespeare’s employment of nosism in Richard II is likely a historically accurate account of its prevalence in formal speech at that time. Even so, King Richard’s utilization of the majestic plural in his public speech serves a larger purpose than historical accuracy—his language directly reflects upon his perception of himself as a divine servant of God. His plurality is a commentary on his view of himself as being above his subjects, speaking as if he is not only appointed by God to rule, but an extension of God himself—a divine being merely tied to the mortal realm by his human flesh. Throughout the play, Richard will oscillate between singularity and plurality, and these forms of addressing himself are connected to his crisis of personal identity as being conflated with the crown and its divinity. Likewise, King Henry’s eventual use of the majestic plural contrasts Richard’s, harkening back to his collectivity with his nation and subjects, rather than a way to distinguish himself from them.
At the beginning of the play, King Richard uses the majestic plural when embracing Bolingbroke during the joust: “We will descend and fold him in our arms. / Cousin of Hereford, as thy cause is just, / So be thy fortune in this royal fight” (1.3. 53-56). Likewise, in the speech quoted above in act 3 scene 3, Richard differentiates himself from his subjects by referring to himself in the plural and everyone else in the singular: “We are amazed; and thus long have we stood / To watch the fearful bending of thy knee” (3.3. 71-73). In both of these passages, Richard uses the informal pronoun “thy” to refer to Bolingbroke and Northumberland; however, when talking to Bolingbroke, Richard is using the informal as a sign of friendship and warmth, and when he is addressing Northumberland, he uses the informal to assert his dominance over him as a subject. In both passages, Richard uses the majestic plural, but in act 3 scene 3, he is defending his divine right to the crown, hoping to strike fear, shame and insecurity into his lesser subjects.
When Richard proclaims,
“show us the hand of God
That hath dismissed us from our stewardship.
For well we know no hand of blood and bone
Can grip the sacred handle of our scepter,
Unless he do profane, steal or usurp” (3.3. 79-83)
he is stating that no human being can strip him of his divine right. He does this, not only by stating that only God can dismiss him from his stewardship, but by using language that elevates himself over Northumberland and the rest of his subjects. He is “our” and “us”, more important and higher than the lowly “you” or “he.” And yet, although Richard views his kingship as being intrinsically connected to the land and the divine, he cannot separate his own mortality and feelings. Later on in act 3, Richard switches to using the singular:
The name of a King? A God’s name, let it go—
I’ll give my jewels for a set of beads
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman’s gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
My sceptre for a palmer’s waking staff
My subjects for a pair of carvèd saints
My large kingdom for a little grave (3.3. 145-153).
Shakespeare’s repetition of “my” creates an emphasis on Richard’s identity being stripped away from him. In letting go of his royalty, Richard lets go of the majestic plural. When deliberating on his own feelings and seeking sympathy from others, he cannot help but drop that bit of his majesty.
Similarly, in act 2 scene 1, Richard switches from the plural to the singular when speaking to John of Gaunt: “Dar’st with thy frozen admonition / Make pale our cheek, chasing the royal blood / With fury from his native residence?” (2.1. 116-120). Interestingly, Richard switches from nosism to addressing himself as a singular “he” over the course of two lines. Perhaps, we can read this change as though his anger is taking over, making him react to John of Gaunt’s words as something personal instead of a political matter. He temporarily separates himself from his kingship in a fit of rage, showing that he does know the difference between the two.
Although Richard views himself as a divine ruler, throughout the play, much of his pain comes from separating his identity from the crown. In this way, Richard is plural, as you cannot have one (himself) without the other (royalty). In moments where he drops the plural, his words are emotionally charged, speaking from a personal and vulnerable state:
With mine own tears I wash away my balm,
With mine own hands I give away my crown,
With mine own tongue deny my sacred state.
With mine own breath release all duteous oaths (4.1. 197-200).
Shakespeare uses repetition again in Richard’s words to show his elongated anguish. In these lines, he is actively stalling, dramatically performing his despair before handing the crown over to Bolingbroke. In addition, he is also stating that he is the only one who can separate the crown from himself when previously he said that only God could remove him from his stewardship. Despite seeing himself as an extension of God and therefore having the power to depose himself, Richard’s crisis of identity is reflected in his language. Without the crown, he is vulnerable, weak, separated from that divinity. When he shatters the glass later on in the scene, he rejects this change in identity. He rejects himself without the crown. He rejects the singular person that is left without his royalty.
Richard’s pain and emotional turmoil is his alone, not to be shared by anyone else who wears the crown: “You may my glory and my state depose, / But not my griefs, still am I king of those” (4.1. 82-83). He refers to King Henry’s cares as newly won, and separates his grief from that of the crown’s responsibilities. Richard’s griefs are his entitlement to the throne and his identity as a ruler and servant of God; Henry’s griefs are, and will be, entirely different. They do not share the same view of themselves in their kingship, just as the play has differing ideologies of what rulership entails. Richard’s fall from grace is a tragedy, and he has the capacity to be read as a sympathetic character, but his political ideology of divine right is still challenged nonetheless by Bolingbroke, who, by all accounts, is more popular and fit for the throne. Shakespeare shows this discrepancy by contrasting the way that the two men use language: Bolingbroke is succinct and strong with his language, taking responsibility, whereas Richard has a flare for the dramatic, either reproaching his people in the majestic plural or going on long poetic diatribes in the singular to evoke sympathy from them.
At the end of act 4 scene 1, Richard leaves the scene, and Bolingbroke says to his noblemen: “On Wednesday next we solemnly set down / Our coronation. Lords, prepare yourselves” (4.1. 309-310). For the first time in the entire play, Henry Bolingbroke uses the majestic plural referring to himself. As soon as Richard steps away to be locked up in the tower, he takes up the mantle of king and the language that comes with it. However, Bolingbroke’s plurality is not the same as Richard’s. Perhaps, we can infer, based on his character within the play as the people’s king, he refers to himself as “we” as a way of assimilating himself with his people as he represents their interests. Instead of viewing himself as divinely chosen by God as Richard does, King Henry was chosen by England and by the people who live there. His plurality is a reflection on his status of being the leader of a collective on earth rather than in heaven.
At the end of the play, after Exton kills Richard and presents his body, King Henry is upset: “Exton, I thank thee not, for thou has wrought / A deed of slander with thy fatal hand / Upon my head and all this famous land” (5.6. 34-36). In such a tumultuous and emotional moment, King Henry does not take this injustice as an act of defying God or the crown itself; he uses the personal “thy” to refer to Exton, but refers to himself as “I” and “my.” Unlike Richard, who framed all of the conceit against him as a betrayal against divinity, Henry bears the burden of Exton’s treason on his own head. He does not look towards a spiritual or divine force; instead, he calls our attention once again to the earth: “Lords, I protest that my soul is full of woe / That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow” (5.6. 45-46). In contrast, Richard’s dying words are: “Mount, mount, my soul; thy seat is up on high, / While my gross flesh sinks downward, here to die” (5.5. 111-112). King Henry grows from the earth, a part of nature, and Richard comes from upward, in heaven, descending into the earth only to shed his mortal coil. Both of these passages act as a major point of comparison for these kings; King Henry is grounded, clear-headed, and understands the political folly of Exton’s actions. King Richard, on the other hand, was a child king, unable to distinguish his own identity from the crown, taking it and his people for granted without strategic foresight. Henry, like the tree of blood he does not wish to grow from, is rooted in a political reality—his rise to power came from his strong perspectives on war, financial assets, and betrayal. Richard had his head in the clouds, only turning to God rather than his own actions or political prowess as a justification for his monarchy.
Works Cited
Originally written for the English MA graduate program at SUNY New Paltz. Fall 2019. ENG 505: Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of King Richard the Second.” The Norton Shakespeare. 2nd Ed. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1997.
Merriam-Webster. “Nosism.” Online. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/nosism
McDonald, Russ. “Politics and Religion: Early Modern Ideologies.” Chapter 9. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. 2nd Ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2001.
Wikipedia. “Royal we.” Online. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
Haleiga 
Leave a comment