At the end of the play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, Fortinbras enter the scene with a bunch of dead bodies and one of them is Hamlet. Fortinbras claims that Hamlet would have been a great king, but the question is why would Fortinbras make a claim to this statement?
There cannot be a strong country without a strong leader, and a king is considered a symbol of his land. Claudius, despite the bloody way he gained power, was the king. Claudius did in fact keep Fortinbras from taking over his kingdom for some time, but his obsession for power ruined the kingdom. Despite being king he is also a murderer, liar, manipulator and a villain. He murdered his own brother, stole his nephew’s throne, and married his sister-in-law, which was considered incest at the time. One quality that Claudius is lacking is respect. Claudius can be blamed for the deaths of Hamlet, Laertes, Queen Gertrude, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and also his own. If the public would have known any of the sinful acts that King Claudius had done to obtain the throne, the mere thought of viewing Claudius, as any kind of leader, let alone a king would have been impossible. It takes a man with qualities such as Hamlet to run a kingdom like Denmark.
So now the question is if Hamlet wasn’t killed, would he have made a good king or failed like Claudius? Hamlet’s qualities such as his intelligence, work ethic and popularity would have made him a good king. You may be thinking how being cold-blooded would make you a good king? Hamlet shows this cruelty throughout the play like when he tells Ophelia to go to a nunnery with the underlining meaning of a whore house, but even more so when kills Polonius without even looking behind the curtains. At times of trouble a king must be a little barbaric to protect his people and land. Nobody would want a king running the country, who couldn’t hold his ground and fight back.
Another reason why Hamlet would have made a good king is because he has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document