How you might ask did the desire for material wealth and gain bring an end to the kingdom of Denmark. It all began with King Claudius and his want for the power and wealth that King Hamlet Had, which lead him to kill his own brother. “That incestuous, that adulterate beast, with witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts- won to his to his shameful lust” (Act 1, Scene 5). With King Hamlet dead and a widowed wife in control of the kingdom. The disgraceful Claudius continued with his reached plan and seized the throne. But what of poor young Hamlet, left to wallow in his grief and sadness while the whole kingdom, …show more content…
But what this argument fails to consider is the fact that Hamlet was lead onto these feeling of rage and anger all because of what Claudius did, “I am thy father’s spirit. Doomed for a certain term to walk the night and for the day confined to fast in fires till the foul crimes done in my days of nature are burnt and purged away” (Act 1, Scene 5). Hamlet’s actions where all a result of his father's death. He did not entend for all these deaths to occur, he only wanted his father to be avenged and for Claudius to be the only one slain. But The kings need to kill Hamlet lead to the deaths of people like Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Laertes are all because he did not think of what might go wrong he just thought of how might he be able to keep his tainted riches, “By letters congruing to that effect, the present death of Hamlet. Do it, England, for like the hectic in my blood he rages, and thou must cure me.” (Act 4, Scene 4). To look pass those facts would be a sin in