What evidence is there that Kent deliberatly antagonizes Cornwall and Regan? Speculate about why he might do this.looking for support from act II specficly
I do not know if we can prove that Kent antagonizes Regan and Cornwall on purpose, but it seems pretty likely that he did.
First of all, why go out of his way to pick a fight with Oswald? Kent knows he's Regan's man so picking a fight with him seems like an obvious way to get Regan and her husband mad at him.
Then, when Cornwall comes to find out what's going on between Oswald and Kent, Kent starts in on him. The words he uses are clearly meant to insult Cornwall. He says (87) that he doesn't like Cornwall's face, for example. And then he starts being exaggeratedly polite. So it seems like he's baiting Cornwall.
My guess is that he's trying to get Lear to see that Regan and Cornwall are no good. He's trying to get the two of them to do something bad to him (like putting him in the stocks). He hopes that Lear will see how badly they treat Lear's man and that this will make Lear distrust them.