Edmund brings up a serious point in the second scene of the first act of King Lear. Do bastard children have as much right to somebody’s lineage as those who are legitimate? For royalty, it is hard to see because of the scandalous issues. But what really makes a family is a parent and their child they raised. If Edmund had not lived with or was not raised by Gloucester then he should have no right to any lineage unless
Gloucester says so. It is a lot more complicated when you are actually raising the child and still denying him a legacy. But it does not matter what he or she deserves, or what is by all means right. We do not live in a society where everything is fair. The only one who can make the decision is the person who has the ability to pass on this legacy, in this case, being
Gloucester. And if
Gloucester wants to give his legacy to one son over the other, then they have to put up with it. There is no say in the matter. Even if
Gloucester said both his children should not receive anything, then neither of them gets anything. Blood and lineage does not matter. Edmund’s schemes may prove him unworthy, but for earthly possessions, worthy is determined by the one giving it out, and no one else.
↧
Bastard
↧