Claudius Got a Bum Rap

Can anyone tell me one good trait that Hamlet possesses? I didn’t think so. Yet the traditional view of this boy-man is that he’s this poor, put-upon tragic soul.

I think it’s way past time that we put this notion to bed and start exploring a totally new look at what ACTUALLY was going on there in Denmark.

First off, let’s look at the supposed villain of this piece, Claudius. According to absolutely all critics and scholars, Claudius committed (1) fratricide, (b) regicide, and (c) something akin to incest with murder thrown in to achieve it. Wow! This is the Shakespearean trifecta of unforgivable sins, and all in one man!

But in his soliloquies and behavior, does he display even one iota of a nature so perfidious that hell would have to have a special addition just for him? Does anyone but Hamlet have even one suspicion—or even one unkind thing to say—about this man? Surely SOMEone in Denmark would have uttered a demurring word about such evil.

Yet none of this happens. There is only one person on a hate campaign against Claudius, and this is the narcissistic, demented Hamlet, the man passed over to be king in favor of a former king’s brother. Doesn’t this make you just a wee bit suspicious about whether Shakespeare might have played a really nifty hoax on us mortals?

Well, it does me, and I’m here to set the record straight. Claudius didn’t kill King Hamlet—he was done in by none other than his madcap son!

King Hamlet died with an earful of dripping poison and a body covered with strange eruptions—so I’m assuming Danish forensic methods were indeed so backward that their investigators, who were assigned to the biggest crime in Denmark possibly ever!, just shrugged and said, “Nothing out of the ordinary here.”

Pshaw! If Claudius had been even remotely implicated, he would not have been elevated to the throne and allowed to marry the queen. However, if a royal son known for erratic, irresponsible behavior had been implicated, there might indeed be a cover-up to prevent the shocking scandal from becoming public. But that son would be denied the throne.

Now, doesn’t this make more sense? And it also explains why Hamlet never complains about not being king—he does, from time to time, know a hawk from a handsaw, and he knows the reason only too well. “Hamlet, dear, you know perfectly well that you killed your father, the leader of a sovereign country, and that, well, somewhat disqualifies you. You’re completely mad, you see. Now don’t bother Mommy with this matter of why you’re not king ever again.”

So this is the starting point for a theory. Discard the notion that Claudius killed his brother, accept the premise that Hamlet killed his father, and let’s see where this trail leads us. First point of proof: Who has the more likely disposition to crime? Point awarded to Hamlet!