In Richard II, Shakespeare examines the nature of kingship by focusing on the conflict between the legal and divine rights to rule and a monarch's effectiveness. Many scholars concur that King Richard is the lawful monarch in Richard II, and other characters acknowledge his divine right to govern. However, despite these rights, King Richard struggles to demonstrate effective leadership. This tension between his legitimate claim to the throne and his inadequacy as a ruler is central to much critical discussion.

Some critics extend their analysis beyond the play, suggesting that Shakespeare's depiction of these themes might reflect his views on the monarchy of his era, particularly Queen Elizabeth. Interestingly, both Bolingbroke and Richard exhibit traits of leadership that parallel aspects of Queen Elizabeth's rule: Bolingbroke exemplifies a ruler with popular support, while Richard has the legitimate claim to the throne.

Historically, Richard II was frequently compared to Queen Elizabeth, especially in the later years of her reign, as she, like Richard, had no direct heirs, making succession a pressing concern for the populace. Given the parallels between Bolingbroke, Richard, and Queen Elizabeth, some believe Shakespeare aimed to portray both Bolingbroke and Richard with empathy.

The audience is captivated by Bolingbroke's authority and regal presence, often perceiving his exile and loss of inheritance as unjust. At the same time, there is room for sympathy towards Richard, who is often seen as weak but not evil, misled by corrupt advisors. Furthermore, he is the rightful king, yet it is argued that he deceives himself into thinking that possessing the noble appearance and rights of a king can replace his responsibilities to his subjects.

Several critics propose that Shakespeare did not favor one view of kingship over the other, instead portraying both Bolingbroke and Richard with nuance to explore the complexities of the issue.

Just as scholars have debated whether Shakespeare emphasizes the rights of the king over the king's competence, others have questioned if divine right takes precedence over the sovereign's legal duties. Is Richard exempt from the law because he and many others believe his kingship is ordained by God? Some critics have noted that while characters such as Gaunt and York acknowledge Richard's divine right to rule, they also see his failure to act as a true king. The play offers several examples where Richard breaks the law: he is involved in Gloucester's death, and he ignores inheritance laws by seizing Gaunt's estate instead of letting it pass to Gaunt's son, Bolingbroke. It has been suggested that while the commonwealth believed its king was sanctioned by both God and the law, there was no system to ensure the king's compliance with the law. Richard's legal violations, though not legally punished, lead to the loss of his people's support and inspire his subjects to defy the law as well. Bolingbroke illustrates this when he unlawfully returns from exile. The concept of kingship is further examined when Bolingbroke ascends the throne with popular support, yet without legal or divine sanction.

The language, imagery, and symbolism in Richard II are frequently examined for their intricate and meaningful interpretations, which illuminate the play's central themes. Some scholars have noted how these elements mirror the theme of Richard's decline and Bolingbroke's ascent. Throughout the play, words and images suggesting rising and falling are common, seen in word pairs such as "ascend" and "descend," "high" and "low," and "sky" and "earth." These concepts are also depicted through images like ladders, scales, and the buckets in a well, with one rising as the other falls. Another set of imagery involves the natural elements: fire, water, earth, and...