According to Shakespeare, being a moral king is of utmost importance. William Shakespeare demonstrates this in his plays, The Tragedy of Richard II, The Tragedy of Richard III, and Henry IV Part I. In these plays Richard II and Richard III are immoral, although for different reasons, and ultimately fail in their quest to be king. In the first part of Henry IV, Henry does not yet fail as king because he is not yet immoral man. In evaluating these plays of Shakespeare, being immoral is a determinant of failure. In the instance where a king or aspiring king is not immoral, success is still possible. Through his plays, Shakespeare creates a scenario that to have the opportunity for success, one has to be a moral, and thus a successful king is morally good because has to be. To succeed as king, and not retain power and not fail in an attempt to have control, a king must act as the righteous king toward his people as otherwise he is undeserving and will fail to maintain control during his reign.
             For a king to be success he should have authority, control, and respect. In his depictions of Richard II, Richard III, and Henry IV Shakespeare presents three very different kings with very different levels of success. Richard II is a king that will soon meet his downfall as his poor judgment will ultimately lead to his demise. Richard II is not a successful king as he is not completely moral in the way he carries himself. Richard III is not yet king, but plans to become king using immoral means. He intends to atone for his poor position by assuming the throne and thus is immoral and doomed as king. King Henry IV overcomes his rebellion and thus is a success and he engages in no immoral actions. In comparing these three kings, a successful king can be said to be one that has control over his kingdom and is the rightful king.
             If a successful king is the rightful king, then a good man is thus one that behaves properly. It is a king...