Kingship and Tyranny

• Shakespeare presents kingship as a moral responsibility that, when respected, brings harmony and order to the kingdom. Through the contrast between King Duncan’s benevolent rule, Macbeth’s tyrannical usurpation, and Malcolm’s rightful leadership, Shakespeare explores the consequences of legitimate versus illegitimate power, and critiques ambition without morality. The play emphasizes that legitimate kingship is rooted in virtue, justice, and moral integrity, while illegitimate and violent usurpation leads to chaos, disorder, and ruin.
• Divine Right of Kings

  • People believed that a king was chosen by God.
  • This meant the king was God’s representative on Earth, and to disobey or harm him was a sin against God Himself.
  • Killing a king (as Macbeth does) was considered unnatural and blasphemous.

  In Macbeth, this is shown when Duncan’s murder leads to chaos in nature—horses eat each other, the skies go dark—because the natural order has been broken.
• The Great Chain of Being

  • This was a popular idea in Shakespeare’s time: everything in the universe had its place, from God at the top to kings, nobles, animals, and even stones.
  • If someone tried to change their position in the chain (e.g., by usurping the throne), it would cause disorder everywhere.

  Macbeth’s ambition to become king by murder disrupts this chain, and Scotland suffers for it—there’s war, suffering, and unrest.
• Qualities of a Good King

  A king wasn’t just powerful—he had to be:

  • Moral and just
  • Wise and fair
  • Protective of his people
  • Someone who ruled with God’s blessing

  King Duncan is shown as this kind of ideal king, while Macbeth is the opposite—a tyrant whose rule brings fear and destruction.