As Hamlet’s body lay on the ground, broken and dead, Fortinbras stood over him. “He was likely,” he spoke solemnly, “had he been put on, To have proved most royal.” Fortinbras believed that Hamlet would have made a great king if he would have survived. It is true, in a way. Hamlet would have made a great king. He was passionate, loyal, and intelligent. However, he only would have. After the events of the play Hamlet was broken hearted and paranoid. This paranoia, his selfishness, and his extreme mourning would have meant that Hamlet could not have been a good king if he had survived the events of the play. Hamlet’s paranoia was overwhelming obvious. Throughout the play, he was constantly worried of being watched. Some are determined that, even in his soliloquies, he overreacted because he felt like someone was listening to him at all times. In Act 3, scene 4, lines 25-30 Hamlet kills Polonius without thinking, simply because he was hiding behind the rapier and listening to the conversation. Hamlet feared that he was going to be attacked or discovered, so he acted out of impulse rather than accessing the situation; his impulse resulted in the death of a person. Paranoia is a terrible trait to have in a ruler. Those in charge should be calm and level-headed. It is impossible to be either of those when …show more content…
Firstly, he used Ophelia to his own benefits, rather than simply loving her. Secondly, while he may have been searching for revenge for his father, he was doing so because of his own grief; and his anger that his father died and that his mother remarried his uncle. Hamlet’s mourning was incessant. His journey for revenge seemed to be the only way he could find closure for himself in the situation. Therefore, he killed and lied to get what he wanted. Willingly murdering and lying to get ahead are traits we associate with foxes and bandits, not kings that are “most