Was Shakespeare revolting?

 Please excuse the poor pun in the title, but I want to write about something I came across while studying Richard II: Shakespeare's subversive nature.  Especially with the play Richard II, many see Shakespeare's plays as swaying public opinion either for or against the monarch.  In Richard II, an upstart young noble, Henry Bolingbroke manages to overthrow the king, which is not generally the kind of thing kings enjoy.  Elizabeth I is reported as once having said, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?", there were those who thought her unfit as a monarch, partly because she had never married, never produced an heir.  The Earl of Essex, reportedly, on the night before his planned rebellion against Elizabeth, paid the Chamberlain's Men to perform Richard II.  He was imprisoned and later executed, but the thought remains -- does Richard II have anything to do with revolution?  Does this play speak either for or against deposing a monarch?

The Earl of Essex turns his back on Queen Elizabeth I, , from COMIC ENGLISH HISTORIES by Dick Doyle, 1886.

Let's look at the text of the play, shall we, to find our answer?  Beyond the events of the play, the lines spoken by the characters, seem to be more in favor of the Divine Right of Kings.  Mostly it is Richard himself who speaks about this but his lines are so clear, I will quote them here.

Act 3 Scene 2 -- "Not all the water in the rough rude sea Can wash the balm off from an anointed king ... for heaven still guards the right."

Act 3 Scene 3 -- "If we be not [king], show us the hand of God  That hath dismissed us from our stewardship For well we know, no hand of blood and bone  Can gripe the sacred handle of our sceptre,  Unless he do profane, steal, or usurp."

Act 3 Scene 3 -- "Yet know, my master, God omnipotent,  Is mustering in his clouds on our behalf  Armies of pestilence; and they shall strike Your children yet unborn and unbegot, That lift your vassal hands against my head  And threat the glory of my precious crown. Tell Bolingbroke"

He, at least, is a firm believer that he has been made King of England by God himself and that only God himself can remove him from that appointment.  Other characters as well share this view, and not just Bushy, Bagot, and Green who side with Richard, but Edmund of Langley, who chastises the Earl of Northumberland for leaving out Richard's title of King when addressing him (Act 3, Scene 3).  And even Henry IV shows respect to King Richard even as he attempts to overthrow him, by kneeling before him, showing deference to the office which he holds.

Shakespeare goes further with the history of Henry IV, his son, and his grandson and shows the effects of one man's decision to disrupt the Divine Right to rule.  From the moment Henry Bolingbroke becomes king his kingdom is at war, with itself because of those who see him as a usurper, with other nations like Scotland, Wales, and France.  He has no quiet moment to enjoy the throne.  His son, too, goes off to war with France, and while he manages to find success there, it is short lived.  His son, Henry VI loses those lands in France, and even his throne in the War of the Roses to Edward IV, Duke of York.

Edward IV is killed (by his brother?) and Richard III becomes king, killing everyone who stands in his way.  It is not until the end of the last of the history plays of Shakespeare, with Henry Tudor that England finds peace again.  And all of this war and death and killing started when Henry Bolingbroke decided to overthrow a King.  Henry took a crown that was not his by right and the whole country suffered nearly sixty years for it.

What does Shakespeare have to say about Divine Right?  It seems that he is a firm believer in a King's right to rule his country.  The best, flowing speeches affirm this belief and the events of the history plays reflect the affects of disobey this Divine Right.